i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................... 1
PURPOSE................................................................................................ 1
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION ..................... 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................ 6
2. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS............................................ 9
PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS OVERVIEW .............................................. 9
EASTERN ARIZONA REGIONAL FRAMEWORK STUDY (BQAZ) ...................... 9
ARIZONA STATEWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN, 2003-2006 ............ 13
ADOT FINAL REPORT, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN, 2009................ 14
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN, SEPTEMBER 2007: TOWN OF
PINETOP-LAKESIDE ........................................................................... 15
PINETOP – LAKESIDE TOWN PLAN, 2006 (TEJIDO)...................................... 17
LINKING OUR LANDSCAPE: OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT FOR THE TOWN OF
PINETOP-LAKESIDE, 2008.................................................................... 19
PINETOP-LAKESIDE 2008 APPLICATION FOR SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
(SRTS) PROGRAM............................................................................... 20
SOUTHERN NAVAJO COUNTY REGIONAL CORRIDOR TIGER GRANT
APPLICATION (2009) ........................................................................... 21
OTHER BACKGROUND ...........................................................................21
3. CURRENT CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 26
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHYSICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS...... 26
CURRENT LAND USE .............................................................................. 27
SOCIOECONOMICS OVERVIEW ................................................................ 29
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (TITLE VI POPULATIONS) ................................ 32
STREET NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE...................... 38
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE...............44
SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION .................................................................... 48
TRANSIT SERVICE .................................................................................. 49
4. FUTURE CONDITIONS THROUGH THE YEAR 2030.................................... 54
FUTURE LAND USE ................................................................................ 54
SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS .............................................................. 56
FUTURE STREET NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE ......... 59
FUTURE PEDESTRIAN NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE . 59
PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL AND SAFETY: OTHER FUTURE TRENDS.................... 60
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5. EVALUATION MEASURES ...................................................................... 61
PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................... 61
ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................... 66
EVALUATION MEASURES........................................................................ 67
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE............................................................. 70
6. OPTIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ..... 72
NORTHWEST STUDY AREA OPTIONS........................................................ 72
SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA OPTIONS ......................................................... 76
OPTIONS THROUGHOUT THE STUDY AREA............................................... 80
7. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 81
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS 2010-2015................ 81
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS 2015-2020................ 84
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS 2020-2030................ 85
8. IMPLEMENTATION AND FUTURE STUDIES ............................................. 86
FUTURE STUDIES................................................................................... 86
PARTNERSHIPS ...................................................................................... 86
APPENDIX A. STAKEHOLDER STATEMENTS OF NEEDS
AND DEFICIENCIES ........................................................89
APPENDIX B. CROSSINGS: SPECIAL PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE BEACON
SIGNALS (City of Tucson Brochure)...................................... 95
APPENDIX C. CRASH ANALYSIS BACKGROUND..................................... 98
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2.1. SUMMARY OF LOCAL STUDIES AND PLANS ......................................... 10
2.2. EASTERN ARIZONA REGIONAL FRAMEWORK STUDY: MOGOLLON RIM
FOCUS AREA SCENARIOS, 2050 ........................................................... 13
2.3. “LINKING OUR LANDSCAPE” SITES IN PEDESTRIAN STUDY AREA.......... 20
3.1. POPULATION CHANGE 2000 TO 2008, ARIZONA, NAVAJO COUNTY, AND
AREA CITIES AND TOWNS .................................................................. 29
3.2. 2009 POPULATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN STUDY AREA........................... 30
3.3. STUDENTS WITH HOMES WITHIN ONE MILE OF SCHOOL....................... 30
3.4. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS...................... 33
3.5. FUNCTIONAL CLASS AND NUMBER OF LANES ..................................... 38
3.6. INTERSECTIONS WITH HIGH NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS, 2003-2008............ 41
3.7. DRIVEWAY AND INTERSECTION DENSITY ON SR 260 ............................ 42
3.8. RECENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES .......................................... 44
3.9. HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS CROSSING SR 260 ......................................... 46
3.10 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLISTS, 2003-2008 ............. 48
3.11. FATAL AND INJURY TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AFFECTING
PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLISTS, 2003-2008.............................................. 48
3.12 FOUR SEASONS CONNECTION FARE STRUCTURE.................................. 49
3.13. FOUR SEASONS CONNECTION, PINETOP-LAKESIDE ROUTE SCHEDULE... 51
3.14 WHITE MOUNTAIN CONNECTION BUS SCHEDULE ................................ 52
3.15. WHITE MOUNTAIN CONNECTION FARE STRUCTURE............................. 53
4.1. COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS ..... 57
4.2. UNEMPLOYMENT REPORT 2006-2009, TOWN AND NAVAJO COUNTY
(Place of Residence)............................................................................... 57
iv
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
5.1. WALKING TRIP PURPOSES BY VARIOUS PERSONS ................................. 61
5.2. PEDESTRIAN AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES:
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES ................................................. 68
5.3. PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE FACTORS.......................................... 70
7.1 PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE, SIDEWALK ALONG SR 260.................. 83
8.1. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION – 2010-2030 ..... 88
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.1. PEDESTRIAN STUDY AREA .................................................................. 2
1.2. INFLUENCE AREA............................................................................... 4
2.1. YEAR 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN ........................................ 16
2.2. PINETOP-LAKESIDE TOWN PLAN NODAL DEVELOPMENT...................... 18
2.3. TOWN PLAN TRAFFIC CALMING CONCEPT, WALNUT CREEK NODE ....... 19
2.4. SOUTHERN NAVAJO COUNTY REGIONAL CORRIDOR TIGER GRANT
APPLICATION.................................................................................... 22
2.5. RELATIONSHIP OF CRASH RATE TO ACCESS POINTS PER MILE .............. 25
3.1. CURRENT ZONING ............................................................................ 28
3.2. TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE .............................................. 31
3.3. COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF TITLE VI POPULATIONS ................. 32
3.4. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE ........................... 34
3.5. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE......................................... 35
3.6. MOBILITY LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE............................ 36
3.7. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE .................... 37
3.8. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION........................................................... 39
3.9. NUMBER OF LANES, TRAFFIC VOLUMES, AND SIDEWALKS................... 40
3.10 DRIVEWAY DENSITY ......................................................................... 43
3.11 LOCATIONS WITH WALKING ISSUES (NORTHWESTERN PORTION) .......... 45
3.12 LOCATIONS WITH WALKING ISSUES (SOUTHEASTERN PORTION) ........... 47
3.13 FOUR SEASONS CONNECTION PINETOP-LAKESIDE STOPS...................... 50
4.1. FUTURE LAND USE............................................................................ 55
4.2. STONE BRIDGE.................................................................................. 56
vi
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
5.1. PLANNING CONCEPTS FOR THE NORTHWEST STUDY AREA
(BRUSD SCHOOLS) ............................................................................. 62
5.2 PLANNING CONCEPTS FOR THE SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA (SR 260)........ 63
5.3 SENSITIVITY TO NEEDS OF ELDERLY DRIVERS AND WALKERS.............. 65
5.4 EXAMPLES OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MODE FOR URBAN ROADWAYS ... 71
6.1 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS FOR THE NORTHWEST
STUDY AREA (BRUSD SCHOOLS) ......................................................... 73
6.2 PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND ON TWO-LANE STATE HIGHWAY ............ 75
6.3 PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND ON FOUR-LANE URBAN ARTERIAL.......... 75
6.4 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS FOR THE SOUTHEAST
STUDY AREA (SR 260)......................................................................... 77
6.5 CRASHES ON SR260, 2005-2008, COMPARED TO INTERSECTION AND
DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS ..................................................................... 78
6.6 INJURY AND FATAL CRASHES ON SR260, 2005-2008 ............................... 79
7.1 EXAMPLE LED STUTTER BEACON....................................................... 82
7.2 PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND AT INTERSECTION................................. 85
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program is sponsored by the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) Multimodal Planning Division, and provides federal
funds for the purpose of conducting transportation planning studies. The PARA program is
available only to communities outside the large metropolitan areas. Large metropolitan areas
have separate funding sources and programs tailored to their needs.
The Town of Pinetop-Lakeside participated, as a member of the White Mountain Regional
Transportation Committee, in another ADOT program for local governments, the Small Area
Transportation Study (SATS) program. In 1998-1999 Navajo County was the lead jurisdiction
in the regional SATS project. The Town completed the Pinetop-Lakeside Transportation Plan
as a part of the White Mountain Regional Transportation Plan. The PARA program replaced
the SATS program in 2008. The PARA program is flexible, allowing for studies of specific
transportation modes and of sub-areas within jurisdictions, which made it possible for the
Town to apply for and receive PARA funding for a pedestrian study in a particular sub-area.
PURPOSE
The Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study (pedestrian study) is a
PARA that is a joint effort of ADOT and the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. The pedestrian study
reviewed past and current information and considered future travel demand. Based upon the
future demand, options for pedestrian facilities and program improvements were described and
discussed. After further analysis and review, the pedestrian study has resulted in a phased
2015, 2020, and 2030 recommended phased program for the pedestrian study area (Figure
1.1).
The purpose of the pedestrian study is to:
• Increase pedestrian safety (especially for schoolchildren) in the pedestrian study area.
• Increase pedestrian safety and mobility for all pedestrians along State Route 260
• Coordinate all pedestrian program solutions with those of other area transportation
projects.
Beginning at its southeast end, the pedestrian study area is a corridor of two-tenths of a mile
each side of the centerline of SR 260 from milepost 355.2 (just south of Ponderosa Parkway)
to milepost 351.8 (Yeager Lane). The corridor then becomes wider to include considerable
pedestrian traffic around both Blue Ridge Unified School District (BRUSD) campuses, one on
SR 260 and the other on Porter Mountain Road. The northwest boundary along SR 260 is at
milepost 349.6 (Lakeview Lane).
SR 260 is also known as White Mountain Boulevard throughout Pinetop-Lakeside, with
Yaeger Lane as the dividing line between White Mountain Boulevard West and White
Mountain Boulevard East. The designation SR 260 is used consistently in this Report.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 2
FIGURE 1.1. PEDESTRIAN STUDY AREA
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 3
Two neighborhoods outside the Town boundary are included in this pedestrian study because
they are in the school district. Those neighborhoods are located:
• Northwest of the intersection of Homestead Road and Woodland Road, within walking
distance of the elementary, intermediate, and high school.
• East of Porter Mountain Road, within walking distance of the middle school and junior
high school.
The region beyond the pedestrian study area boundaries will have some influence upon the
characteristics of pedestrian travel and on pedestrian safety. The influences are of two types,
at different scales (Figure 1.2). First, the relatively nearby area includes the rest of Pinetop-
Lakeside, Show Low, the Hon-Dah area of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Snowflake,
Taylor, McNary, and neighboring areas in Navajo County. One influence from the nearby
area would be the effect upon pedestrian traffic when Penrod Road and Porter Mountain Road
are developed as an alternative to SR 260. Penrod Road is north of the study area and appears
on Figure 1.2 and Figure 2.4. Note that Penrod Land is not connected to Penrod Road;
Penrod Lane is within the southeast portion of the study area. Another influence is the
sidewalk and trail traffic from outside the area that connects to Porter Mountain Road and the
SR 260 corridor. Finally, the residents of the nearby area use walkways in the community
when they visit Pinetop-Lakeside to walk about, to shop, and to attend events, some of which
are at the schools.
A larger region north to Holbrook and east to Springerville and Eagar also appears on Figure
1.2, and is also an influence area. Regional bus service extends to Holbrook, the Navajo
County seat. Much of the traffic passing through the Town on SR 260 is headed east to the
Sunrise Park Resort (skiing center), Greer, Springerville, or Eagar.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
Both of the pedestrian study Working Papers and this Draft Final Report (Report) benefited
from the insights of many people. Stakeholders were interviewed early in the planning
process. The stakeholders included several Technical Advisory Committee members and
representatives of groups that have special knowledge of travel patterns and/or pedestrian,
bicycle, and motor vehicle issues in the Town.
Stakeholders expressed needs and deficiencies in interviews held for the pedestrian study on
September 16 and 17, 2009 in Pinetop-Lakeside Town Hall. Stakeholder discussions included
one to four interviewees plus the consultant and the Town and ADOT project managers.
There were 18 total interviewees:
Nancy Bortin Transportation Staff, BRUSD
Jerry Croney White Mountain Entertainment Group Owner
Mike Digeno Red Devil Restaurant Owner
Norris Dodd Town Councilman
Woody Eldridge Town Police Chief
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 4
FIGURE 1.2. INFLUENCE AREA
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 5
Mary French-Jones Town Grant Coordinator
Brian Gilbert Town Planning Commissioner
Dennis Hughes Chief Operating Officer, Navopache Electric
Nick Lund President, TRACKS
Brian McCabe Town Planner
Greg Schalow Superintendent, BRUSD
Luke Smith Town Mayor and Assistant Principal, Blue Ridge High School
Beverly Stepp Chamber of Commerce Executive Director
Tom Thomas Town Public Works Director
George Turner Governing Board President, BRUSD
Kelly Udall Town Manager
John Vuolo Town Parks and Recreation Director
Leslee Wessel Town Councilwoman
At the interviews maps were displayed that illustrated some of the issues. Follow-up
discussion elicited more issue statements and provided details. Stakeholders had received the
following questions to consider in advance of their interviews:
1. What improvements are needed to encourage pedestrian travel and to make
it safe?
2. What do you suggest regarding how ADOT, the Town, and the Blue Ridge
Unified Schools might work with additional partners on facilities or
educational programs for safe pedestrian travel?
The stakeholder report in Appendix A is a compilation of the statements made by
stakeholders.
An overriding theme emerged both at the stakeholder interviews and the subsequent first
public Open House on October 8, 2009:
Residents and Visitors to Pinetop-Lakeside want to walk in Town—just as
they hike on the nearby trails. More walking would be likely if several
types of issues were resolved.
Two open houses were conducted to receive comments from the public concerning the findings
of the pedestrian study. The first open house occurred on October 8, 2009, and was a
presentation of the issues under study followed by the solicitation of public and stakeholder
input on the needs, deficiencies, and issues. The second open house took place on the evening
of March 10, 2010, and focused upon the draft pedestrian safety and mobility plan. The
consultant reviewed the insights of the meeting participants and they were incorporated into
this Report as appropriate. The public meetings are more fully documented in the Public
Involvement Summary Report (under separate cover).
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Current and Future Conditions
• Since 2006, several local, state, and federal multimodal studies have included some
information on the status of pedestrian travel in Pinetop-Lakeside. The Town
recognized that a pedestrian study was warranted that would have a primary emphasis
on pedestrian safety and mobility issues along developed SR 260 and extending north to
include the area around both school campuses.
• The Town has begun work on a new General Plan that is to further expand upon two
recent studies:
- Pinetop-Lakeside Town Plan, Tejido group (Town Plan), that identified three
walkable development nodes within the pedestrian study area—the Old Towne
Node, Walnut Creek Node, and Penrod Node.
- Linking our Landscape, Open Space Assessment for the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside,
the Nature Conservancy, 2008 (Linking our Landscape) that identified fifteen open
space preservation areas within the pedestrian study area, including twelve with
urban trail potential.
• Throughout the state, the same conditions contribute to pedestrian accidents on the
State Highway System, including SR 260 in the Town. Key factors include sidewalks
directly adjacent to the roadway, a lack of crosswalks between activity centers, lighting
conditions, and alcohol consumption.
• Residents and visitors drive, rather than walk, along and across SR 260 to avoid
conflicts with vehicles. The avoidance of walking in Town affects public health,
business, enjoyment of the scenic landscape, and many other aspects of community
life.
• Potential crash points arise from the lack of access management on SR 260:
- From the northern pedestrian study area boundary to south of Worldmark Drive,
there are over thirty driveways and intersections in each mile of SR 260.
- In the segment between Turkey Track and Stephens Drive, there are 71 driveways
and intersections.
• Some specific pedestrian safety concerns on SR 260 are:
- Traffic congestion and speed.
- Threat posed by difficult turns for vehicles.
- Walking too close to traffic, and sharing sidewalks with bicycles.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 7
• Some specific concerns of the school community are:
- Too few crosswalks
- Student pathways that are not continuous from home to school
• Many elderly or mobility-challenged seasonal residents and visitors are present, yet no
pedestrian facilities assist those who walk slowly or who have deficits in vision,
hearing, or reaction-time.
• Pedestrian travel is affected by the terrain and by winter weather, especially by the
accumulation of snow. Snow removal operations along the length of SR 260 present
additional concerns and complications related to pedestrian safety.
• Many opportunities exist for the Town to link an urban pedestrian network with
recreational trails by partnering with neighboring communities, developers, the US
Forest Service, the local TRACKS organization, and others.
Plan for Improvements
• Recommendations resulted from the following process:
- Review of current and future conditions.
- Review of pedestrian safety and mobility issues identified by the consultant,
technical advisory committee, and citizens.
- Compilation of evaluation measures as criteria for selection of recommendations.
- Definition of an extensive list of options for improvements.
- Selection of recommendations from the options, based upon evaluation measures.
- Phasing of recommendations over three time periods: 2010-2015, 2015-2020, and
2020-2030.
􀂃 The recommendations for 2010-2015 include:
- Billy Creek Bridge as first phase of Porter Mountain Road improvements, and a
continuous walkway between the school campuses.
- A pedestrian refuge area and related facilities on SR 260 between Woodland Road
and Yellow Jacket.
- Signal improvements for safer crossing at several SR 260 intersections.
- Wayfinding maps, revised as facilities are built or improved.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 8
􀂃 The recommendations for 2015-2020 include:
- Widening of Porter Mountain Road from two to four lanes, between SR 260 and
the mid/junior high school, with raised median, curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
- Sidewalks adjacent to SR 260 set back from the curb in many locations, and
sidewalks built to and through the Old Town and Penrod Nodes.
- Consolidation of driveways as a cooperative program with businesses, for economic
benefit and pedestrian and vehicle travel safety, with a focus on Turkey Track to
Stephens Drive.
- Median between Jackson Lane and Woodland Road and between Woodland Lake
Road and McCoy Drive, with appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities.
􀂃 The recommendations for 2020-2030 include:
- Median between East Pinecrest Lane and Woodland Lake Road, with appropriate
pedestrian crossing facilities.
- Pedestrian refuge islands between turning lanes and through lanes (on SR 260 at
Porter Mountain Road and Woodland Road), for safe travel by children and the
elderly.
- Continuation of programs from previous phases to complete the programs in the
pedestrian study area, and to extend the programs outside the study area.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 9
2. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS
This chapter presents background related to transportation in the Pinetop-Lakeside Area.
PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS OVERVIEW
Table 2.1 summarizes the documents that were reviewed. Additional detail is provided on the
following studies:
• Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study (bqAZ)
• Arizona Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2003-2006
• ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, Profile of Pedestrian Safety in Arizona, 2008
• Community Transportation Plan, September 2007: Town of Pinetop-Lakeside
• Pinetop-Lakeside Town Plan, 2006
• Linking Our Landscape: Open Space Assessment for the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside,
2008
• Pinetop-Lakeside 2008 Application for Safe Routes to School Program
• Southern Navajo County Regional Corridor Tiger Grant Application, 2009
The chapter concludes with an introduction to some professional literature regarding
pedestrian safety and access management. Additional information from local studies and other
professional literature is cited in later chapters of the pedestrian study.
EASTERN ARIZONA REGIONAL FRAMEWORK STUDY (bqAZ)
A consortium of state, regional, and local stakeholders completed the planning process
Statewide Transportation Planning Framework, 2010 for state transportation infrastructure
needs. As part of this process, regional framework studies fed into the statewide
transportation planning framework.
The Eastern Arizona Region includes parts of Gila, Navajo, and Apache Counties, and all of
Graham, Greenlee, Cochise, and Santa Cruz Counties. Community Workshops introduced the
public to the Framework Studies, with two rounds of public involvement—Round One
searching for public input as to the needs of the area and Round Two presenting the three
resulting Scenarios and searching for public input on the result.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 10
TABLE 2.1. SUMMARY OF LOCAL STUDIES AND PLANS
Study Description
Federal Studies and Plans
Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forests (ASNFs) Forest Plan
Update (ongoing).
Public meetings were held in April 2010 for comment upon initial
drafts of four alternatives, which will be analyzed in an
Environmental Impact Statement. The desired future conditions
regarding community-forest interaction would be the portions of
the ASNFs plan most related to the pedestrian study.
State Studies and Plans
Statewide Transportation
Planning Framework, 2010.
(Eastern Arizona Region, see
entry below).
A consortium of state, regional, and local stakeholders is working
on the planning process Building a Quality Arizona for state
transportation infrastructure needs. The Regional Framework
Study below fed into the Statewide Transportation Planning
Framework, a long-range visionary plan focusing on transportation
needs in the 2030-2050 timeframe.
Eastern Arizona Regional
Framework Study.
Round One: Public
Involvement Report, April
2008;
Round Two: Public
Involvement Report, April
2009.
The Eastern Arizona Region includes parts of Gila, Navajo, and
Apache Counties, and all of Graham, Greenlee, Cochise, and
Santa Cruz Counties. Products described in this Report include:
Community Workshops, Round 1, March/April 2008 and Round
2, November 2008. The Round 1 document includes public
comment on the needs of the area, and the Round 2 document
includes public comment on the three developed scenarios resulting
from the Round 1 workshops.
Arizona Statewide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, Phase I, 2003
Phase II, 2004; maps 2006.
http://www.azbikeped.org
The Arizona Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan provides a
long-term plan for a statewide system of interconnected bicycle
facilities that will guide ADOT transportation decisions relating to
bicycle and pedestrian travel, planning, and facility development.
ADOT Final Report,
Pedestrian Safety Action Plan,
2009.
ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan’s goal is to identify
improvements and programs that will improve pedestrian safety
and reduce pedestrian crashes, fatalities, and injuries on state
highways.
ADOT State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP),
FY 2009-FY 2012.
Contains one major project for SR 260 within the pedestrian study
area, a Transportation Enhancement Project from Porter Mountain
Road to Woodland Road including construction of landscaping,
irrigation and pedestrian lighting, at a cost of $481,000.
There is also one minor project, a FY 2010 project at milepost 350
to construct a retaining wall, at a cost of $99,000.
ADOT Five Year
Transportation Facilities
Construction Program, FY
2010-FY 2014.
The above project from the STIP appears as a FY 2010 project at a
cost of $763,000.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 11
TABLE 2.1. SUMMARY OF LOCAL STUDIES AND PLANS (Continued)
Local and Regional Studies and Plans
Southern Navajo/Apache
County Sub-Regional
Transportation Plan, Executive
Summary, September 2007.
This roadway study resulted in a recommended 2030 alternative
projected to cost $620 million (2006 dollars), in 35 projects, (33
projects to be new roadways or increases in the number of lanes,
and 2 to be traffic interchanges). The sub-region addressed by the
plan included the Towns of Pinetop-Lakeside, Snowflake, Taylor,
City of Show Low, and the unincorporated areas of southern
Navajo and Apache Counties, (Concho, Vernon, and environs).
Community Transportation
Plan, September 2007: Town
of Pinetop-Lakeside.
This roadway plan was a part of the 2007 Sub-Regional study
described above. The material bound alone as the Community
Transportation Plan describes the Town’s recommended 2030
alternative projected to cost $102 million (2006 dollars), in 8
projects that would be new roadways or increases in the number of
lanes, 3 of which ($45 million) would be projects under the
jurisdiction of the Town. The study did not include pedestrian,
bike, or transit modes.
Pinetop-Lakeside Town Plan,
2006.
University of Arizona’s Tejido Group developed the 2006 Pinetop-
Lakeside Town Plan and conducted a community survey to analyze
the Town’s current development and to create new planning
guidelines to direct future growth.
Linking Our Landscape: Open
Space Assessment for the
Town of Pinetop-Lakeside,
The Nature Conservancy,
2008.
The Nature Conservancy completed an assessment of sites that
might be maintained as open space for the benefit of the
community and the landscape, while encouraging growth in
appropriate nodes.
Pinetop-Lakeside 2008
Application for Safe Routes to
School Program (SRTS).
Town Council Resolution No. 08-1013 and accompanying
application to ADOT, November-December 2008. The Town was
not awarded a grant.
Southern Navajo County
Regional Corridor TIGER
Grant Application, September
2009.
Navajo County Resolution No. 63-09, August 11, 2009; endorsed
by ADOT September 14, 2009. Application to fund four projects,
three of which would improve pedestrian facilities on Porter
Mountain Road. None of the projects was funded, but the
application was an informative document.
Public Input, Round One
Two rounds of community workshops were held for the Eastern Framework study. The
purpose of the March 2008 workshops was to exchange information with the public early in
the framework study. Common themes in public comment throughout the Eastern Region
included:
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 12
• High level of interest in developing more public transit (in various forms).
• Interstate and State Highway System needs improvement: new north-south and east-west
corridors are needed.
• Need for alternate routes/bypasses around population centers to alleviate congestion.
• Safety improvement through access management and better bike and pedestrian
facilities.
Mogollon Rim Focus Area Comments:
• Tourism is a large economic factor and brings a lot of traffic in the summer.
• Need for more capacity on existing roadways.
• Need for more rail.
• Roadways already overburdened by tourist travel (weekends/summer).
• Growth is being observed in Snowflake/Taylor, White Mountain Lakes,
Heber/Overgaard, Apache City, Holbrook, and around Pinetop and Show Low.
Developers are moving out from the towns and cities to the County areas.
Three overarching transportation network scenarios (Personal Vehicle Mobility, Transit
Mobility, and Focused Growth) for the Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study were
developed after the March 2008 workshops. The scenarios were based on the following
assumptions:
• Each includes multimodal transportation options to varying levels.
• All scenarios address sustainable or smart growth principles to varying levels.
• Land use is consistent with current local and regional plans—except Focused Growth,
which encourages increased land use densities in certain areas.
• Each scenario is independent of the others.
Public Input, Round Two
The purpose of the November 2008 workshops was to gather input on the three hypothetical
scenarios. The concepts for the Mogollon Rim Focus Area in the three scenarios are
described in Table 2.2.
In the Pinetop-Lakeside area, the greatest difference between the scenarios was the presence of
a conceptual new roadway bypassing Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside, along with the
extension of intercity bus service between Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 13
TABLE 2.2. EASTERN ARIZONA REGIONAL FRAMEWORK STUDY:
MOGOLLON RIM FOCUS AREA SCENARIOS, 2050
Scenario Theme
Common
Characteristics Other Characteristics
A Personal Vehicle
Mobility
Conceptual new roadway (principal arterial)
bypassing Show Low from US 60 along the
western border of Show Low and Pinetop-
Lakeside to SR 260 in the south.
B Transit Mobility Intercity bus from south of Pinetop-Lakeside
through Show Low to Holbrook along SR
73/SR 260 and SR 77; Improved roadway
(shoulders, passing lanes, drainage, etc.)
along SR 73/SR 260.
C Focused Growth
All three
scenarios
include local
transit service
areas, intercity
bus extents, and
roadway
improvements
or upgrades
Improved roadway (shoulders, passing lanes,
drainage, etc.) along SR 73/SR 260 through
Pinetop-Lakeside; Widen/upgrade SR 260
and Penrod Rd. through Show Low
Source: ADOT, Building a Quality Arizona Community Workshop Exhibits, November 2008.
Exact comments received specific to Pinetop-Lakeside in the Round Two workshops included:
• Show Low needs a safe way for bikes to go along White Mountain Road to
Pinetop/Lakeside.
• Extend the sidewalks from the Deuce of Clubs to Pinetop Lakeside.
• I don’t know if I would feel safe driving through Show Low, Pinetop and Lakeside.
There’s barely enough room on the sidewalks to walk.
• When they redid the highway to Pinetop there was a plan for a bike lane. There is
high level of interest in developing more public transit (in various forms).
ARIZONA STATEWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN, 2003-2006
The Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Phase I (2003) provided a long-term plan for a
system of shared roadways and bicycle and pedestrian facilities for the ADOT State Highway
System. The Plan was intended to serve as a guide to ADOT in making transportation
decisions relating to bicycle and pedestrian travel, planning, and facility development and to
provide a long-term plan for a statewide system of interconnected bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. The plan includes several recommendations that ADOT and agencies around the
state could implement to improve bicycling and walking conditions, and also includes terms,
definitions, and statutes for bicycles and pedestrians from the Arizona Revised Statutes. A
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 14
predominant recommendation of the Plan was to assure adequate provision of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities as integral components of all future ADOT projects, unless the project has
no relation to bicyclists or pedestrians. The Plan also proposed a pedestrian policy for
consideration by ADOT to establish uniform guidelines for accommodating pedestrian travel
on the State Highway and State Route System.
A notable product of Phase II was the guide “Sharing the Road with Pedestrians,” which
advises both motorists and pedestrians to understand travel from the other person’s view of the
road. Given the large number of pedestrian accidents that involve children, many of its tips
concentrate upon teaching children to be wise pedestrians. Specific tips address school buses,
and less familiar design elements, such as the roundabouts that have become more common
recently. The guide also contains relevant pedestrian statutes in the Arizona Revised Statutes
(as of January 1, 2008).
ADOT FINAL REPORT, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN, 2009
The Final Report, Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, 2009 reviewed a Profile of Pedestrian Safety
in Arizona, that had a goal to “identify action items, improvements, or programs that upon
implementation will reduce the number and rate of pedestrian crashes, fatalities, and injuries
on Arizona’s highways.” The report stated that Arizona had the 6th highest pedestrian crash
rate in the nation in 2006. Additionally, pedestrian fatalities in the state accounted for nearly
13 percent of all motor crash fatalities; whereas the nationwide average is lower at 11.2
percent. From 2002-2006 there were three pedestrian collisions in Pinetop-Lakeside that
accounted for .39 percent of all pedestrian crashes in Arizona.
Analysis of the statewide pedestrian data plus input from local officials indicated that the
following infrastructure factors contributed to pedestrian crashes on state highways:
• Sidewalk discontinuities • Lighting
• Lack of crosswalks between activity
centers
• Sidewalks directly adjacent to the
roadway
• Socioeconomic factors, such as
alcohol- related crashes
The Final Report’s Pedestrian Safety Emphasis Areas for the State Highway System included
two emphasis areas of special relevance to Pinetop-Lakeside:
• Reduce pedestrian crashes on undivided (no median barrier) roadways. Pedestrian
crashes occurring on two-way roadways without a raised median account for
approximately 64 percent of statewide pedestrian crashes.
• Reduce pedestrian crashes involving pedestrians who had been drinking. On high-crash
segments, crashes involving pedestrians who had been drinking total 27 percent
of crashes along segments and 22 percent of pedestrian crashes at interchanges.
Alcohol consumption by pedestrians has also been expressed as a concern by local
jurisdiction staff and by tribal communities.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 15
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN, SEPTEMBER 2007: TOWN OF
PINETOP-LAKESIDE
The Community Transportation Plan (2007 Plan) made recommendations for roadway needs
through the year 2030. While the plan did not include pedestrian, bike, or transit modes,
many of its findings were important to this pedestrian study:
• The 2007 Plan’s future land use analysis, socioeconomic projections, roadway travel
demand modeling process, and results informed this pedestrian study.
• The modeling addressed 2015, the time horizon for a short-term improvement program
in this pedestrian study and 2030, the same long-term time horizon as this pedestrian
study.
• The 2007 Plan’s travel demand findings were the basis for this pedestrian study’s initial
vehicular travel projections, which were then adjusted because of the downturn in the
economy since 2008.
The Pinetop-Lakeside planning area for the 2007 Plan extended beyond the Town boundary.
The 2007 Plan’s recommendations were organized into eight projects. Each project was listed
according to which jurisdiction would be responsible, so a roadway through the Town, Show
Low, and unincorporated Navajo County could have multiple projects. The planning area
projects recommended by the Community Transportation Plan appear in Figure 2.1.
The Scott Ranch Road project from SR 260 to Penrod Road is an ongoing project,
recommended for completion by 2015. It is in Show Low’s jurisdiction and to be funded by
federal grants, Show Low, and Navajo County. While Scott Ranch Road is outside the
pedestrian study area, its traffic will impact Porter Mountain Road once both Scott Ranch
Road and Porter Mountain Road/Penrod Road improvements are completed.
Portions of Porter Mountain Road/Penrod Road (3 projects) were recommended to be
constructed in about 2020; the travel lanes on the road would increase from two to four
(approximately one mile of that project would be in the pedestrian study area). The final
portion of that roadway (1 project) was recommended to be constructed in 2030. That
improved roadway, with strict access control, would accommodate the 42,000 vehicles per day
projected for 2030. The continuation of the Porter Mountain Road/Penrod Road widening
project outside the pedestrian study area would accommodate the 38,000 vehicles per day
projected for 2030 to the north.
The future two-lane Rim Road (2 projects) recommended for 2030 or later does not intersect
the pedestrian study area. The Sky-Hi Road Extension recommended for 2030 from Porter
Mountain Road to US 60 is also outside the pedestrian study area.
The $45 million estimate for projects under the jurisdiction of the Town comprises $16 million
for the Porter Mountain Road project and $29 million for the Rim Road project.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 16
FIGURE 2.1. YEAR 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 17
PINETOP-LAKESIDE TOWN PLAN, 2006 (TEJIDO)
In 2006 the Tejido Group of The University of Arizona evaluated the Town of Pinetop-
Lakeside’s socio-cultural, ecological, infrastructure, and economic needs for the Pinetop-
Lakeside Town Plan (Town Plan). The primary object of the Town Plan was to analyze the
community’s needs and to “propose a series of planning options that not only respected the
findings of prior studies, but also developed new planning paradigms for directing future
development.” The final recommendations of the study were organized into three “modules”
of development: “creeks and open space, streetscape and highway 260, and the development
of individual nodes.” Items connected most closely to the purposes of the pedestrian study are
briefly summarized below.
The Town Plan analyzed Pinetop-Lakeside’s current infrastructure and stated that Porter
Mountain Road, Woodland Road, and Woodland Lake Road were considered secondary roads
used by residents and visitors to avoid SR 260. The intersection at Yeager Lane and SR 260
was noted as the busiest and most dangerous intersection in need of traffic calming devices and
safe pedestrian crossings. Additionally, the Town Plan observed the Town’s limited and unsafe
routes for alternative transportation, noting that pedestrian crossings on SR 260, bicycle lanes
on roads, and sidewalk buffers to provide pedestrian safety were all lacking.
The Tejido Group interviewed key community leaders and also conducted a community survey
of business owners, residents, and youth. Survey questions focused on respondents’ feelings
on the current state of the Town and the needs and wants for future development. Questions
related to pedestrian travel produced the following results:
• Enjoyment of Walking around Town. 59 percent of business owners, 45 percent of
residents, and 38 percent of the youth surveyed disagreed or strongly disagreed that
they enjoyed walking around Town.
• Safety of Travel. 54 percent of youth, 40 percent of residents, and only 24 percent of
business owners agreed or strongly agreed that it was safe to drive and walk around
Town.
The survey asked various questions regarding a trail system, with the following results:
• Trail System. 80 percent of business owners agreed or strongly agreed that a trail
system within the Town would benefit businesses, while 90 percent of residents agreed
or strongly agreed that a trail system within the Town would benefit residents. 54
percent of youth said that they would use a recreational trail system often.
To improve the Town’s insufficient infrastructure and to address the wants and needs of
residents, the Pinetop-Lakeside Town Plan suggested clustering growth in four nodal areas.
Three nodal development areas are located in the pedestrian study area, as shown in Figure
2.2: The Old Towne Node, Walnut Creek Node, and the Penrod Node.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 18
FIGURE 2.2. PINETOP-LAKESIDE TOWN PLAN NODAL DEVELOPMENT
Source: Pinetop-Lakeside Town Plan, The Tejido Group, 2006.
Old Town Node
The Old Town Node (old Lakeside) is the area surrounding SR 260 from Porter Mountain
Road to east of Woodland Road. Commercial areas, a new civic and senior center, and new
trails highlighting historic sites and Billy Creek were important elements proposed for this
node. To allow for safe crossings of SR 260’s five lanes of traffic, underpasses were proposed
to accommodate pedestrians as development increases. The Town Plan also suggested
improving intersections along commercial corridors in the Old Town node with the use of
medians, crosswalks, and stamped pavers to alert drivers of pedestrian movements.
Walnut Creek Node
The northeast edge of the Walnut Creek Node would be the Safeway Center at Yeager Rd and
SR 260, but its heart would be new development across SR 260. There would be a new
commercial Main Street oriented southwest/northeast continuing to a new Town Square to the
southwest fronting on Walnut Creek. Residential land would be adjacent on either side of the
Main Street corridor. The Walnut Creek Node was intended to be a Main Street district
between old Pinetop and old Lakeside. The district would have trail linkages to and through
Billy Creek, the Big Springs environmental study area, Woodland Lake Road, the Mountain
Meadows Recreation Complex, and Woodland Park.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 19
In addition, the Town Plan encouraged a traffic calming design (Figure 2.3) at a new
intersection at the Safeway complex and SR 260 with a raised intersection, specific paving,
cues to alert drivers if walkers were present, curb extensions, and crossing islands.
FIGURE 2.3. TOWN PLAN TRAFFIC CALMING CONCEPT, WALNUT CREEK
NODE
Source: Pinetop-Lakeside Town Plan, The Tejido Group, 2006. “This conceptual sketch shows the
implementation of traffic calming devices including curb extensions, crossing islands, and
speed tables. The sketch was prepared to represent an intersection of the new Main Street in
the Walnut Creek Node.”
Penrod Node
The Penrod Node, located at the corner of Penrod Lane and SR 260, would be characterized
by parks and creek access allowing residents and visitors more access to outdoor recreation. A
median island about 300 feet long would be along SR 260 at the offset Penrod Lane and SR
260 intersection. The median would help overcome street crossing safety issues that come
from the offset. An island would guide pedestrians safely across the highway and provide a
safe place for those who could not cross in one light cycle. The Town Plan also suggested
placing a trailhead at the same intersection to allow public access to Billy Creek.
LINKING OUR LANDSCAPE: OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT FOR THE TOWN OF
PINETOP-LAKESIDE, 2008
The “Linking our Landscape” study was a new community vision regarding future open space
areas. The study assessed many sites identified as open space and urban trails/pedestrian
pathway priorities.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 20
Table 2.3 lists features of the fifteen sites that were completely or largely within the pedestrian
study area. Besides those sites, the area just north of Lake of the Woods (within the
pedestrian study area) was labeled an “additional open space parcel identified for
conservation.”
One of the concerns of those who undertook the assessment was that the lack of linkages
between sidewalks and trails discourages pedestrian travel throughout the community.
TABLE 2.3. “LINKING OUR LANDSCAPE” SITES IN THE PEDESTRIAN STUDY
AREA
Site Name
Pedestrian Pathway
Potential?
Urban Trail
Potential?
Billy Creek Natural Area Yes Yes
Lakeside Summer Homes Yes Yes
Blue Ridge Unified School District Intersection Yes No
Big Springs Environmental Study Area Walk or bike the
bicycle lane
Yes
Rhoton Barn Yes Yes
Porter Mtn. Road/Hwy. 260 Intersection Yes Yes
Lakeside Campground Yes Yes
Creekside Yes Yes
Billy Creek Private Yes Yes
Firefighter Memorial Park No No
Fisher Pond Yes Yes
Charlie Clark’s Orchard No No
Lakeside Orchards Yes Yes
Aspen Meadow Yes Yes
Pine Lake Meadow Yes Yes
Source: Summary of information in ‘Site Assessments 1-25 Sites’ portion of “Linking our Landscape” study.
PINETOP-LAKESIDE 2008 APPLICATION FOR SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS)
PROGRAM
While the SRTS application did not result in an award of funds, the Town Council resolution
and the accompanying application are an important record of the Town’s recent planning in
cooperation with the Blue Ridge Unified School District. The Town council stated that the
cooperative effort would educate children (including those with disabilities) and others about
safe walking and biking to school. The application also indicated that a feature of the project
would be to encourage a healthy and active lifestyle and to pre-plan for an infrastructure
project to “improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution near
schools.” Subsequent infrastructure projects would be “a pedestrian bridge over Billy Creek
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 21
and…a sidewalk along Porter Mountain Road on Town right-of-way.” In 2009, the Town
participated in another application to fund those improvements, described immediately below.
SOUTHERN NAVAJO COUNTY REGIONAL CORRIDOR TIGER GRANT
APPLICATION (2009)
Three projects that would directly benefit the pedestrian study area were included in a joint
town-county application for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds under
the Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program. Although
none of the Town’s projects received funds, the needs and criteria for setting priorities were
set out well. The common purposes of the projects were stated as: “The proposed projects
would enhance regional mobility and connectivity, improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities,
and provide safer routes for schoolchildren at Blue Ridge Mid/Junior High School.”
The project sites in the Town appear in Figure 2.4 and the project descriptions were:
• Priority Two Project: Construct a new four-lane bridge over Billy Creek, widen and
build sidewalks and a pedestrian path along Porter Mountain Road from SR 260 to Blue
Ridge Mid/Junior High School, and improve an existing roundabout at the school
entrance.
• Priority Three Project: Construct a four-lane vehicle and pedestrian bridge over Porter
Creek on Porter Mountain Road (in the Town, less than one thousand feet north of the
pedestrian study area boundary).
• Priority Four Project: Widen Penrod Road/Porter Mountain Road to a four-lane road
from Blue Ridge Mid/Junior High School to US 60 in Show Low and provide an
associated multiuse pathway for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Priority One Project was the completion of Scott Ranch Road from SR 260 to Penrod
Road in Show Low, indirectly benefiting the pedestrian study area as an alternative/emergency
route.
OTHER BACKGROUND
Programmatic guidelines regarding pedestrian safety and access management from federal and
state programs, studies of similar topics from elsewhere in Arizona, and selected professional
literature also inform this project. Several key documents are summarized below.
Flagstaff Pedestrian Planning
Flagstaff is one of a handful of Arizona cities and towns that share Pinetop-Lakeside’s four
seasons climate. Extensive pedestrian planning is ongoing by the City of Flagstaff.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 22
FIGURE 2.4. SOUTHERN NAVAJO COUNTY REGIONAL CORRIDOR TIGER
GRANT APPLICATION
Source: Southern Navajo County Regional Corridor TIGER Grant Application, Figure 2,
Proposed Project Locations, p. 5.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 23
Development of the Flagstaff Urban Trails System (FUTS) has been pursued since the 1980s
and the Flagstaff Urban Trails Study was a part of the regional land use plan completed in
2003. Implementation of the trail system continues and the priorities for FUTS facilities are
updated annually by the City’s Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
The 2004 Flagstaff Urban Mobility Study addressed many multimodal issues for the Old Route
66 (west) corridor and the Milton Road Corridor. Many similarities exist between the Old
Route 66 corridor and SR 260 in the Town. For example, average annual daily traffic on two
miles of Old Route 66 ranges from 21,900 vehicles at one end down to 4,500 vehicles at the
other end, while average annual daily traffic on two miles of SR 260 ranges from 22,300
vehicles at one end down to 8,700 vehicles at the other end. Both roadways have sidewalks
directly adjacent to the road and have a similar mix of adjacent land uses, comprising
residential neighborhoods, commercial tourist facilities, and open space.
Safe Routes to School
The SRTS program was created as part of the five-year federal transportation funding program
for 2005-2009. That federal legislation was named the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU. The overall funding
package put a particular emphasis on safety programs. The primary reason for developing the
nationwide SRTS program was this country's growing epidemic of childhood obesity and
diabetes.
The program accomplishes its goals “by providing funds for schools and communities to
implement infrastructure projects (such as sidewalk improvements, trails, and 'traffic
calming') and non-infrastructure programs (such as education campaigns, law enforcement
efforts, and prize giveaways),” according to the ADOT SRTS Program website at
http://www.azdot.gov/MPD/srts/Resources.asp.
A large body of resources supports the SRTS program. The Town, in cooperation with the
Blue Ridge Unified School District, has prepared for potential participation in the program.
Many of the resources for the SRTS program are available on the ADOT SRTS Program
website.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel on Highways
Design guidance from the Federal Highway Administration has been available since the year
2000 concerning how to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel along major highways. A
part of that guidance is the US Department of Transportation policy statement: Integrating
Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure. The general statement of the policy
is that bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 24
unless exceptional circumstances exist. The policy statement details separate considerations
for:
• Urban and rural areas.
• Bicycle and pedestrian crossings (as well as travel along the highway).
• Accommodation of persons with disabilities.
The “complete streets” movement has continued to develop policies and design ideas for the
integration of bicycle and pedestrian travel into overall highway operations. According to the
National Complete Streets Coalition, “complete streets are designed and operated so they are
safe, comfortable, and convenient for all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit
riders of all ages and abilities.”
Many “complete streets” design concepts are similar to the infrastructure portion of the “Safe
Routes to School” program. “Complete streets” tends to be broadened to include other
pedestrians, beyond schoolchildren, and other trips beyond the walk to school. In Arizona,
the City of Scottsdale has adopted a “complete streets” policy.
Access Management
Transportation access management programs have a primary focus on highway safety. They
address methods to maintain mobility while increasing safety. Pedestrian safety is one of the
topics of a highway’s access management program wherever there is pedestrian traffic. An
example of a recent access management program in Arizona is the Pinal County Regionally
Significant Roads for Safety and Mobility study and Access Management Manual, adopted in
2008.
Intersection and driveway minimum spacing requirements, varying according to the density of
new development, are an example of access management. Those requirements may be found
at several phases of the roadway and land development processes of state and local
governments. Traffic engineering policies and guidelines may contain the requirements and
methods for determining traffic impacts. Special zoning districts such as design review
overlay zones may have such guidelines.
Many studies have shown that crash rates increase with greater frequency of driveways and
intersections. Figure 2.5 shows that the crash rate goes up as the number of access points per
mile goes up. At the upper end of driveway density, each driveway is typically related to
more crashes than at the lower end of driveway density.
Conversely, limiting the numbers of driveways decreases the total number of points where
there can be vehicle-pedestrian conflicts in addition to the points where there can be vehicle-vehicle
conflicts.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 25
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
Access Points per Mile
Source: TRB Access Management Manual, 2003
Crash Rate
FIGURE 2.5. RELATIONSHIP OF CRASH RATE TO ACCESS POINTS PER MILE
Some further types of pedestrian safety benefits that could accrue from a roadway design that
included access management features could be:
• Sensible linkages of roadways, sidewalks, parking areas, entrances to developments,
and recreational trails.
• Roadway width for bicycles and sidewalks for pedestrians.
• Space for pedestrian and bicycle “refuge areas” associated with right-turn lanes and
medians.
• Grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle roadway crossings.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 26
3. CURRENT CONDITIONS
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHYSICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS
The Town’s website describes the community’s natural setting as follows: “Pinetop-Lakeside
is a community located in the scenic White Mountains of Arizona. Pinetop-Lakeside, at an
elevation of 7,200 feet, is known for its extensive tourism and recreational activities,
proximity to the world's largest stand of ponderosa pine, and for an outstanding quality of life.
The White Mountain Trail system provides over 180 miles of developed multi-use trails.”
The natural environment is described well in several of the Town’s recent plans, such as
“Linking Our Landscape.” Figure 1.1 in this pedestrian study, the Pedestrian Study Area
map, shows the area’s streams, lakes, prominent mountain peaks, and the Mogollon Rim.
Some aspects of the natural environment have particular effects upon pedestrians, such as:
• The high-elevation four seasons climate. Sometimes it is too cold or snowy to walk in
the Town in the winter, but hardly ever too hot to walk in the summer.
• The scenic beauty of the area. A walk in an attractive natural environment is especially
enjoyable.
Land Ownership
The bulk of the lands in the White Mountains of Arizona near Pinetop-Lakeside are in the Fort
Apache Indian Reservation (FAIR; 1.67 million acres, south of the Town) and the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs), north of the Town. The ASNFs comprise about 2.10
million acres overall. There are about 237,000 acres of United States Forest Service (USFS)
land in the ASNFs’ geographic area known as Sitgreaves East. USFS planning includes those
areas adjacent to forest lands that have a high degree of interaction with forests, so the Town
of Pinetop-Lakeside is a part of the Sitgreaves East planning area.
Land ownership in the pedestrian study area appears on the Figure 1.1 Study Area map. The
pedestrian study area was defined to include areas of much pedestrian traffic adjacent to major
roadways. Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the land in the pedestrian study area is
in private ownership.
The proximity of the ASNFs and FAIR to the pedestrian study area is pertinent to the plan.
North of SR 260 a few acres at the edge of the ASNFs are within the northeast portion of the
pedestrian study area near Pineview Drive. South of SR 260, the edge of Woodland Lake
Park, which is isolated USFS land, is within the pedestrian study area. The park is maintained
and operated by the Town under a use permit from the USFS, and the Town is working
toward the eventual acquisition of the park. While no FAIR land is within the pedestrian study
area, the reservation is within a mile of the western and southern study area boundary at some
points.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 27
Other public lands in the pedestrian study area are parcels owned by the Blue Ridge Unified
School District and used for the public school campuses, and lands owned by the Arizona
Game and Fish Commission.
CURRENT LAND USE
This current land use description comprises two parts of the pedestrian study area, the
northwestern portion and the southeastern portion. Figure 3.1, Current Zoning, provides a
view of current and potential land use.
The northwestern portion of the pedestrian study area is where the major focus is the safety
of schoolchildren’s walking and biking routes to school, although it is also important to
address all of the pedestrian issues in the northwestern area. The northwestern portion ends at
Yaeger Lane and SR 260. The northwestern portion of the pedestrian study area is largely
private residential land surrounding the two Blue Ridge Unified School District campuses.
The Blue Ridge high school, elementary school, and school district offices are housed on the
south campus. The north campus comprises the middle and junior high schools. The north
and south campuses include some shared facilities, such as athletic fields, meaning some
students travel the nearly 1.5 miles from one campus to the other every day, largely along
Porter Mountain Road.
The recent TIGER grant application describes land uses along Porter Mountain Road, as
follows:
“Porter Mountain Road is also an important industrial location. Construction of
the Navopache Electric Cooperative’s industrial campus and headquarters is
scheduled to begin in fall 2009 within one block of the Blue Ridge Mid/Junior
High School campus. Navopache Electric Cooperative provides service in a
five-county region, including Catron, New Mexico. The cooperative’s new
70,000‑square‑foot headquarters on Porter Mountain Road will represent a $10
million capital investment. The cooperative retains 115 high-wage skilled and
professional positions in the region. The cooperative’s regional
membership/consumer base is 39,500.
The Town of Pinetop-Lakeside estimates that additional future development on
Porter Mountain Road could result in over 816,000 square feet of new building
space with up to 2,000 jobs.
Pinetop-Lakeside Commerce Park is situated next to Blue Ridge Mid/Junior
High School. The commerce park consists of Pineview Medical Facility,
Hospice Compassus, and light industrial manufacturing operations. The
commerce park is currently at 50 percent capacity. In addition, Savanna
Apartments, a planned 153‑unit rental housing development, will front Porter
Mountain Road.”
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 28
FIGURE 3.1. CURRENT ZONING
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 29
The southeastern portion of the pedestrian study area is the corridor two-tenths of a mile
each side of the centerline of SR 260 from Yaeger Lane to the southeast end of the pedestrian
study area just south of Ponderosa Parkway. There are no schools in the southeastern portion,
but many children’s trips to school pass through this area.
All together approximately two-thirds of the land in the pedestrian study area is developed,
compared to less than one-third of the land in the Town overall.
SOCIOECONOMICS OVERVIEW
The Town of Pinetop-Lakeside has fewer than 5,000 year-round residents, yet serves a
seasonal population of 30,000. Second home owners, seasonal visitors, and tourists come to
the Town for various reasons in every season. Many summer visitors have second homes and
stay for extended periods, while relatively more winter visitors stay in the Town temporarily,
especially those whose interest is in skiing nearby.
Between 2000 and 2008 Pinetop-Lakeside grew at a rate slightly faster than that of the State of
Arizona overall, and at double the rate for Navajo County overall (Table 3.1). At 4,758 in
2009, the Town’s population was virtually unchanged over 2008.
TABLE 3.1. POPULATION CHANGE 2000 TO 2008
ARIZONA, NAVAJO COUNTY, AND AREA CITIES AND TOWNS
Area
DES Estimate
July 1, 2008
Population,
Census 2000
Numeric
Change
Percent
Change
Arizona 6,629,455 5,130,632 1,498,823 29.2%
Navajo County 114,780 97,470 17,310 17.8%
Pinetop-Lakeside 4,765 3,582 1,183 33.0%
Eagar 4,810 4,033 777 19.3%
Holbrook 5,611 4,917 694 14.1%
Show Low 12,315 7,695 4,620 60.0%
Snowflake 5,565 4,460 1,105 24.8%
Springerville 2,194 1,972 222 11.3%
Taylor 4,453 3,176 1,277 40.2%
Source: Arizona Department of Commerce population statistics unit, December 12, 2008.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 30
The Community Transportation Plan contained Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) housing and
population estimates as of 2006. The consultant estimated the proportion of each TAZ’s
housing that is in the pedestrian study area based upon a careful review of aerial photographs,
Town land use maps, and certain assessor parcel information. Final adjustments also included
accounting for development that occurred between 2006 and 2009. The result is the following
estimate of study area housing units, households, and population in Table 3.2.
TABLE 3.2. 2009 POPULATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN STUDY AREA
Area Housing Units Households Population
Northeast of SR 260 1,009 547 1,440
Southwest of SR 260 851 508 1,104
Total Study Area 1,860 1,055 2,544
The population density in the pedestrian study area in the year 2000 appears in Figure 3.2.
The Community Transportation Plan included a 2006 employment estimate of 4,231 jobs for
the greater Pinetop-Lakeside area. An inspection of aerial photos and the zoning map for the
TAZs of which the pedestrian study area was a part indicated that 3,200 to 3,400 of the jobs
were in the pedestrian study area. A more refined employment estimate was beyond the scope
of this study.
The number of students whose homes are within a radius of one mile of school campuses
appears in Table 3.3 below.
TABLE 3.3. STUDENTS WITH HOMES WITHIN ONE MILE OF SCHOOL
Campus Number of Schoolchildren1
North Campus (Grades 5-8) 87
South Campus (Kindergarten-Grade 4) 135
South Campus (Grades 9-12) 143
1Source: Blue Ridge Unified School District, 2009.
About 57 percent of the pedestrian study area’s housing units are occupied by households on a
year-round basis, and those year-round households average about 2.4 persons per household.
As of 2008, the pedestrian study area population was about half as large as the Town’s
population. The pedestrian study area has two neighborhoods within it that are outside the
Town boundary, but in the school district boundary, as noted in Chapter 1.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 31
FIGURE 3.2. TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 32
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (TITLE VI POPULATIONS)
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes ensure that individuals are not
discriminated against based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. Following
the issuance in 1994 of Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, procedures were developed to
analyze the effects of transportation plans and facilities upon environmental justice
populations. This pedestrian study addressed the environmental justice protected classes
including the elderly (Aged 65 and older), minority and low-income populations, and mobility-limited
populations. Environmental justice issues related to transportation in the Pinetop-
Lakeside Area were addressed in the following manner:
• Background data. US Census data appears below that describes the population living
within geographic areas that could be affected by proposed transportation
improvements.
• The Pedestrian Safety and Mobility Plan – analyzed whether the recommended
projects may differentially affect environmental justice populations. Examined the
potential effects, both positive and negative, that those projects may have on the
environmental justice populations. Explained the considerations that dictated this
recommendation over alternative actions, if any of the potential projects places a
disproportionate burden on elderly, minority, low income, or mobility-limited
populations.
• Public Involvement Activities - concerted effort to reach minority and low-income
populations when conducting the study’s public meetings.
The proportion of the population in each of the four protected classes in the Pinetop-Lakeside
area is compared to the corresponding proportions in the State of Arizona shown in Figure
3.3.
FIGURE 3.3. COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF TITLE VI POPULATIONS
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Age 65 and Over Minority Below Poverty
Line
Mobility Limited
(Age 16-64)
Arizona
Pinetop-
Lakeside
Study Area
Source: US Census 2000.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 33
The proportion of the Pinetop-Lakeside study area population that is in each group is fairly
close to the state’s percentage except for the percentage of minority population, which is
considerably higher for the state. The population age 65 and older is the only group with a
share of study area population that is higher than its share of state population. The maps that
follow show the densities calculated for the entire blocks or block groups covering the
Pinetop-Lakeside study area.
Elderly Population: The elderly population was over 14 percent of the total persons in
the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside in the year 2000, and only 10 percent of the persons in
Navajo County (Table 3.4., Figure 3.4).
Minority Population: The minority population was almost 11 percent of the total persons
in the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside in the year 2000 (Table 3.4., Figure 3.5).
Mobility-Limited Population: The mobility-limited population was just over 11 percent
of the total persons in the Town in the year 2000 (Table 3.4., Figure 3.6).
Low-Income Population: The population under the poverty level was almost 10 percent
of the total persons in the Town in the year 2000 (Table 3.4., Figure 3.7).
TABLE 3.4. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS
Minority And Elderly Population
Area Population
Population
65 & Over
Percent
Population
65 & Over
Minority
Population
Percent
Minority
Population
Arizona 5,130,632 667,839 13.02% 1,856,374 36.18%
Navajo County 97,470 9,758 10.01% 56,274 57.73%
Pinetop-Lakeside
Town
3,582 531 14.82% 388 10.83%
Mobility Limited And Below Poverty Level Population
Area Population
Mobility
Limited
Percent
Mobility
Limited
Population
Below
Poverty
Percent
Below
Poverty
Arizona 5,130,632 1,021,844 19.92% 698,669 13.62%
Navajo County 97,470 24,465 25.10% 28,054 28.78%
Pinetop-Lakeside
Town
3,582 404 11.28% 355 9.91%
Source: US Census 2000.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 34
FIGURE 3.4. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 35
FIGURE 3.5. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 36
FIGURE 3.6. MOBILITY-LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 37
FIGURE 3.7. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 38
STREET NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE
Roadway Network Characteristics
The functional class and number of lanes for existing major roadways in the pedestrian study
area appear in Table 3.5. Figure 3.8 displays the Functional Classification. The number of
lanes and traffic volumes appear in Figure 3.9.
TABLE 3.5. FUNCTIONAL CLASS AND NUMBER OF LANES
Roadway Functional Class Number of Lanes
SR 260 State Highway System Major
Regional Principal Arterial
Two lanes each direction and
continuous center turn lane
Porter Mountain Road Town Minor Arterial (Rural
except for ¼ mile closest to SR
260)
One lane in each direction
Niels Hansen Lane, then west
on Rainbow Lake Lane
Town Urban Collector One lane in each direction
Woodland Road Town Urban Collector One lane in each direction
Apache Lane, then north on
Yaeger Lane
Town Urban Collector One lane in each direction
Woodland Lake Road Town Urban Collector One lane in each direction
Buck Springs Road, crossing
SR 260 to become Ponderosa
Parkway
Town Urban Collector One lane in each direction
SR 260 is a four-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction and a continuous center
turn lane through most of the pedestrian study area. SR 260 is a divided highway (with a 23-
foot median) in the .6 miles at the southeastern end of the pedestrian study area, continuing as
a divided highway for two more miles east, then becoming undivided just north of Hon-dah
Casino at SR 73. All other roads have two lanes (one lane in each direction).
Traffic Volume
The current traffic volumes appear in Figure 3.9.
SR 260 and local roadways handle weekday traffic well other than some peak-hour congestion
near key intersections. Weekend events that bring many visitors to the Town include the Fall
Artisan’s Festival, Run to the Pines Car Show, Native American Art Festival, and Bluegrass
Music Festival. Traffic congestion associated with such events begins Thursday and extends
through Sunday. Additional weekend events draw most of their attendance from the White
Mountains; those events create traffic congestion on Saturday and Sunday.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 39
FIGURE 3.8. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 40
FIGURE 3.9. NUMBER OF LANES, TRAFFIC VOLUMES, AND SIDEWALKS
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 41
Traffic Safety and Accidents, 2003-2008
SR 260 carries a high proportion of the total vehicle and pedestrian trips in Pinetop-Lakeside.
Records of accidents and other incidents on the Town’s roadways are kept according to the
relationship of the roadway segment to SR 260, because the route is on the State Highway
System. A total of 1,675 crashes occurred in the Town in the six-year period of 2003-2008.
The number of accidents by milepost or intersection appears in Table 3.6 for those locations
that were the site of 25 or more accidents. An intersecting street name typically appears if the
accident was at or very near the intersection. A milepost number (MP) typically appears if the
accident was not intersection-related; the accidents listed by milepost number could have been
anywhere along the mile segment (e.g. an accident listed by MP350 could have occurred
anywhere between MP350.00 and MP350.99).
Pedestrian accident information appears in the Pedestrian Network Characteristics and
Performance section in turn.
TABLE 3.6. INTERSECTIONS WITH HIGH NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS, 2003-2008
Intersection or Milepost
Total Number
of Accidents Fatalities Incapacitating
Non-incapacitating
S 260 and MP350 102 0 2 6
SR 260 and MP351 95 2 0 8
SR 260 and Porter Mountain Rd 70 0 2 7
SR 260 and Neils Hansen Ln 67 0 0 17
SR 260 and Woodland Rd 66 2 0 6
SR 260 and MP353 56 2 2 7
SR 260 and MP352 48 0 2 9
SR 260 and Penrod Ln 47 0 0 6
SR 260 and Yellow Jacket Ln 44 0 0 5
SR 260 and Pineview Dr 37 0 0 0
SR 260 and Yeager Ln 36 0 0 5
SR 260 and MP354 36 4 2 8
SR 260 and MP355 34 0 2 9
SR 260 and Woodland Lake Rd 34 0 0 0
SR 260 and Moonridge Dr 32 1 0 5
SR 260 and Yaeger Ln 30 0 0 7
SR 260 and Pinecrest Rd 26 3 1 2
Source: ADOT, Traffic Group, Traffic Records Section.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 42
Driveway and Intersection Density
Many intersections and driveways exist on SR 260, as listed on Table 3.7 and mapped on
Figure 3.10. Several of the intersections and driveways were constructed before modern
ADOT regulations and practices took effect concerning intersection spacing, driveway
encroachments, and traffic impact studies.
TABLE 3.7. DRIVEWAY AND INTERSECTION DENSITY ON SR 260
From Road To Road
Number of Driveways and
Intersections per Mile
Northern Study Area Boundary North of Johnson Ln 45
North of Johnson Ln North of Springer Mountain Dr 31
North of Springer Mountain Dr North of Turkey Track 39
North of Turkey Track Stephens Dr 71
Stephens Dr South of Worldmark Dr 37
South of Worldmark Dr Southern Study Area Boundary 3
Source: Lima & Associates, GPS field survey.
A partial roundabout for vehicular travel was
completed on Porter Mountain Road at the entrance
to the school district’s middle school/junior high
school campus. However, there are no sidewalks
at the roundabout.
Traffic Control Mechanisms
Traffic signals are placed at sites where studies indicate that the traffic conditions justify them,
unless there are extenuating circumstances. The conditions studied are the volume of traffic,
number and types of crashes, pedestrian activity, and physical characteristics of the location.
Currently all of the traffic signals in the pedestrian study area are on SR 260, at the following
locations:
• Porter Mountain Road • Woodland Road
• Penrod Lane • Yaeger Lane
• Main entrance to the school district’s
south campus (Yellow Jacket Drive)
• Ponderosa Parkway/Buck Springs
Road
Three recent Traffic Signal Needs Studies were conducted by ADOT upon the request of the
Town to investigate the need for additional traffic signals. The details of the study results are
in Table 3.8. None of the three studies reported enough pedestrian activity for it to be a
determining factor in recommending a traffic signal.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 43
FIGURE 3.10. DRIVEWAY DENSITY
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 44
TABLE 3.8. RECENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES
Study (Location/Date) Results
SR-260
at Pineview Drive and
Pineview Lane MP 352.77
2004
Two vehicular volume conditions and the crash experience
condition were met. The Pinetop Post Office attracts a relatively
high volume of traffic, but signalization was not recommended
because of geometrics not conducive to signal operation. In
addition, an anticipated post office move to a different location did
not occur.
SR-260
at Woodland Lake Road
MP 353.09
2006
The eight-hour vehicular volume condition and the four-hour
vehicular volume condition were met. ADOT’s conclusion was
that signalization “may be considered.” The Town requested
raised concrete medians to be part of the signal project. ADOT
responded that the expense would be high and snowplowing
operations would be hindered by isolated medians.
SR-260
Pine Lake Road
MP 354.16
2006
Measured data failed to meet the minimum values for any of the
signal warrants; therefore, a signal was not recommended in
2006. The study noted that additional new housing is anticipated
that would use Pine Lake Drive.
Source: ADOT, Traffic Group, Traffic Records Section.
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE
Sidewalks and Other Pedestrian Safety Accommodations
The current sidewalks in the pedestrian study area appear in Figure 3.9. As shown, sidewalks
are on SR 260 only.
Existing Pedestrian Routes and Crossing Measures: Schoolchildren and Others
School destinations and pedestrian crossings are shown in Figure 3.11. Because of the varied
distances from homes to school, those students who walk to school routinely are those who
live in the northwestern part of the pedestrian study area, closest to the schools. The
northwestern area is shown in Figure 3.11, including the locations of school crossing and
pedestrian crossing warning signs for motorists.
The safety of students crossing the area of SR 260 in front of the elementary and high school
campus is of concern. Of particular concern is the large number of high school students who
cross the highway at lunchtime. The segments where many students cross SR 260 stretch
from Woodland Road east to Moonridge Drive. Within those segments there are traffic
signals and marked crosswalks at both the Woodland Road and Yellow Jacket Drive
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 45
FIGURE 3.11. LOCATIONS WITH WALKING ISSUES (NORTHWESTERN PORTION)
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study ��� Page 46
intersections with SR 260. Town staff conducted a pedestrian traffic count on the four
segments between 11:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. on three days in October 2009. The average
number of times students walked across SR 260 each day (one crossing, from north to south or
south to north counts as one trip) appears in Table 3.9.
TABLE 3.9. HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS CROSSING SR 260
SR 260 Segments (West to East) Number Trips Across SR 260
Woodland Road and SR 260 Intersection 31.3
Woodland Road to Elementary School Exit 58.7
Elementary School Exit to Yellow Jacket Drive 37.7
Yellow Jacket Drive to Moonridge Drive 65.5
Total Trips 193.2
Jay Walking as a Proportion of Total Trips 85%
Jay walking comprises any crossing outside of marked crosswalks and any crossing against a
red signal light. Students were observed to be jay walking on 85 percent of their trips across
SR 260.
The pedestrian safety issues on the remainder of the SR 260 corridor are less directly
connected to the schools. The needs of pedestrians in all age groups must be considered.
Those who walk in the area include local year-round residents, seasonal residents, and tourists
who stay for a short time, such as skiers in the winter season. Figure 3.12 illustrates some of
the issues. The locations of lodging establishments are included on the Figure because they
indicate some of the areas where tourists might be walking.
Pedestrian Traffic Safety and Accidents, 2003-2008
The traffic accident summary appears in Table 3.6 earlier in this chapter. Most of the
accidents did not involve pedestrians or bicyclists. Eight accidents occurred for which
pedestrians were considered responsible and twelve accidents for which bicyclists were
considered responsible during the same six-year period. Table 3.10 indicates the violation
reported in each of those accidents.
Several additional accidents involved pedestrians and bicyclists. Two were fatal pedestrian
accidents and four incapacitating injury accidents. The total number of pedestrians and
bicyclists injured or killed in accidents over the six-year period appear in Table 3.11.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 47
FIGURE 3.12. LOCATIONS WITH WALKING ISSUES (SOUTHEASTERN PORTION)
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 48
TABLE 3.10. TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLISTS, 2003-2008
Responsible Person Violation Number of Accidents
Pedestrian Did not use crosswalk 3
Pedestrian Unknown 2
Pedestrian Other 1
Pedestrian Inattention distraction 1
Pedestrian Failed to yield right-of-way 1
Bicyclist Other 3
Bicyclist Inattention distraction 3
Bicyclist No improper action 2
Bicyclist
Knowingly operated with faulty or
missing equipment 1
Bicyclist Rode in opposing traffic lane 1
Bicyclist Other 1
Bicyclist Inattention distraction 1
Source: ADOT, Traffic Group, Traffic Records Section.
TABLE 3.11. FATAL AND INJURY TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AFFECTING
PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLISTS, 2003-2008
Person Affected Injury Severity
Number of
Persons Affected
Pedestrian Fatal 2
Pedestrian Incapacitating injury 4
Pedestrian Non incapacitating injury 2
Bicyclist Incapacitating injury 1
Bicyclist Non incapacitating injury 2
Bicyclist Possible injury 4
Source: ADOT, Traffic Group, Traffic Records Section.
SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION
State guidelines suggest a maximum walking distance to school should be 1.0 miles for
students in grades K through 8 and 1.5 miles for students in grades 9 through 12. Blue Ridge
Unified School District buses children who live close to the schools, because of the lack of
sidewalks and the harsh winter weather in the Town.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 49
The school district and the Town recognize that if there is a safe walking route to school,
health, educational, and social benefits result from walking to school. That recognition was
one of the motivations for this pedestrian study. The district currently participates in an
annual International Walk to School Day, co-sponsored in 2009 by the Town and charitable
organizations. In addition, on bus routes where there is a safe route to school for children
who live near the school, the route is scheduled so that those who live nearest are picked up
from home first, so they are on the bus for the longest time. That scheduling presents some
families with a reasonable choice for their children to walk a short distance rather than
spending additional time on the bus.
TRANSIT SERVICE
Two transit services currently serve the Pinetop-Lakeside Area: A local circulator, Four
Seasons Connections, and a regional service, White Mountain Connection. This section
summarizes both systems.
Four Seasons Connection
The Four Seasons Connection is a public transit system operated with funding provided by the
City of Show Low and the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, with matching funds from the Federal
Transit Administration’s Section 5311 Rural Transit Program administered through the
Arizona Department of Transportation. Four Seasons operates 16-passenger cutaway
minibuses on two routes, a Show Low route and a Pinetop—Lakeside route. The routes
connect at Wal-Mart (at the south end of Show Low), providing continuous service between all
points within the two communities. All vehicles are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Table 3.12 lists the fare structure.
TABLE 3.12. FOUR SEASONS CONNECTION FARE STRUCTURE
Single Ride $1.00
All Day Pass $3.00
General 10 Ride Punch Pass $7.50
Senior - 20 Ride Punch Pass $10.00
Disabled - 20 Ride Punch Pass $10.00
Monthly Pass $30.00
Student Pass (Fall, Spring, or Summer Semester) $35.00
Hourly service is provided Monday through Saturday from 6:30 am to 6:30 pm along SR 260.
Figure 3.13 depicts the 27 stops served by the Four Seasons scheduled service. Table 3.13,
presents the Four Seasons bus schedule in effect in July 2009. In addition, Four Seasons
operates complementary paratransit service for patrons unable to reach one of the bus stops.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 50
FIGURE 3.13. FOUR SEASONS CONNECTION PINETOP-LAKESIDE STOPS
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 51
TABLE 3.13. FOUR SEASONS CONNECTION – PINETOP-LAKESIDE ROUTE SCHEDULE
Wal-Mart 6:30 7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30
Aspen Medical Center (By Request)
Wagon Wheel Plaza 6:35 7:35 8:35 9:35 10:35 11:35 12:35 1:35 2:35 3:35 4:35 5:35
Racer’s Edge 6:39 7:39 8:39 9:39 10:39 11:39 12:39 1:39 2:39 3:39 4:39 5:39
Bell Gas 6:40 7:40 8:40 9:40 10:40 11:40 12:40 1:40 2:40 3:40 4:40 5:40
The Shores 6:42 7:42 8:42 9:42 10:42 11:42 12:42 1:42 2:42 3:42 4:42 5:42
Town Offices 6:43 7:43 8:43 9:43 10:43 11:43 12:43 1:43 2:43 3:43 4:43 5:43
Village 8 theater 6:44 7:44 8:44 9:44 10:44 11:44 12:44 1:44 2:44 3:44 4:44 5:44
Ace Hardware 6:46 7:46 8:46 9:46 10:46 11:46 12:46 1:46 2:46 3:46 4:46 5:46
Holiday Inn 6:48 7:48 8:48 9:48 10:48 11:48 12:48 1:48 2:48 3:48 4:48 5:48
Ponderosa Plaza 6:50 7:50 8:50 9:50 10:50 11:50 12:50 1:50 2:50 3:50 4:50 5:50
Love Kitchen 6:52 7:52 8:52 9:52 10:52 11:52 12:52 1:52 2:52 3:52 4:52 5:52
Pinetop Circle K 6:55 7:55 8:55 9:55 10:55 11:55 12:55 1:55 2:55 3:55 4:55 5:55
Smoke Shop (By Request)
Hon-Dah Casino 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00
National Bank of Arizona 7:05 8:05 9:05 10:05 11:05 12:05 1:05 2:05 3:05 4:05 5:05 6:05
Village Center 7:09 8:09 9:09 10:09 11:09 12:09 1:09 2:09 3:09 4:09 5:09 6:09
Woodland Inn 7:11 8:11 9:11 10:11 11:11 12:11 1:11 2:11 3:11 4:11 5:11 6:11
Safeway 7:13 8:13 9:13 10:13 11:13 12:13 1:13 2:13 3:13 4:13 5:13 6:13
Ponderosa Village 7:15 8:15 9:15 10:15 11:15 12:15 1:15 2:15 3:15 4:15 5:15 6:15
Pinetop Library (By Request)
Senior Center 7:18 8:18 9:18 10:18 11:18 12:18 1:18 2:18 3:18 4:18 5:18 6:18
Antique Mercantile 7:20 8:20 9:20 10:20 11:20 12:20 1:20 2:20 3:20 4:20 5:20 6:20
Blue Ridge Plaza 7:22 8:22 9:22 10:22 11:22 12:22 1:22 2:22 3:22 4:22 5:22 6:22
Ponderosa Lanes 7:25 8:25 9:25 10:25 11:25 12:25 1:25 2:25 3:25 4:25 5:25 6:25
NRMC Hospital (By Request)
Show Low VA (By Request)
Wal-Mart 7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30 6:30
PM Route Times are shown in bold face type
Source: Four Seasons Connections; schedule.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 52
White Mountain Connection
The White Mountain Connection is a regional commuter service that was initiated in April
2009. The system is funded cooperatively by the Town of Pinetop Lakeside, Navajo County,
Northland Pioneer College, City of Holbrook, City of Show Low, Town of Snowflake, and
Town of Taylor. White Mountain Connection provides three daily round trips between
Pinetop-Lakeside and Holbrook. Table 3.14 presents the revised schedule published July 23,
2009. Table 3.15 presents the fare structure.
TABLE 3.14. WHITE MOUNTAIN CONNECTION BUS SCHEDULE
Morning Mid-Day Evening
Northbound
Pinetop-Lakeside
Safeway 5:45a 11:10a 3:40p
Show Low
Summit HealthCare/Wal-Mart* 5:50a 11:20a 3:50p
D.E.S. 6:00a 11:30a 4:00p
Taylor
Bashas’ 6:20a 11:45a 4:15p
Snowflake
Northland Pioneer College (NPC) 6:25a 11:50a 4:20p
West First Street 6:30a 11:55a 4:25p
Holbrook
County Complex 7:00a 12:25p 4:55p
Old County Court House 7:10a 12:35p 5:05p
NPC 7:20a 12:40p 5:10p
Southbound
Holbrook
NPC 7:20a 12:40p 5:10p
Circle K Greyhound Station 7:25a 12:45p 5:15p
Buffalo/Navajo 7:30a 12:50p 5:20p
County Complex 7:40a 1:00p 5:30p
Snowflake
West First Street 8:10a 1:30p 6:00p
Police Department 8:12a 1:32p 6:02p
NPC 8:15a 1:35p 6:05p
Taylor
Bashas’ 8:20a 1:40p 6:10p
Show Low
D.E.S. 8:50a 2:00p 6:30p
Summit HealthCare/Wal-Mart* 9:05a 2:10p 6:40p
Pinetop-Lakeside
Safeway 9:15a 2:25p 6:55p
*Estimated
Source: White Mountain Connection, Schedule Revision #2, July 23, 2009.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 53
TABLE 3.15. WHITE MOUNTAIN CONNECTION FARE STRUCTURE
Single Ride:
Within the same town $1.00
To the next town $3.00
Anywhere else on the route $5.00
All Day Pass* $8.00
Senior and Disabled – 20 Ride Punch Pass $10.00
Monthly Pass (unlimited rides) $60.00
Student Semester Pass $70.00
Provides a free transfer to Four Seasons connection in Show Low
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 54
4. FUTURE CONDITIONS THROUGH THE YEAR 2030
The Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study is to result in
recommendations that would be implemented between 2010 and 2030. The study’s purposes
are to increase safety and mobility for pedestrians along SR 260 and in the area around the two
school campuses, in a manner that coordinates with other transportation projects.
Recent plans described in Chapter 2 have suggested future pedestrian safety and mobility
programs. As work began on this pedestrian study Town officials reconfirmed that
recommendations in those recent plans should be considered further in the pedestrian plan.
Current conditions described in Chapter 3 include some new land developments, such as the
new middle school/junior high school campus, and projects in the near future, such as
completion of Navopache Electric Cooperative headquarters on Porter Mountain Road.
Various reports connected to the ongoing projects include some suggested programs that would
influence pedestrian travel and that are to be accomplished over the next few years.
Therefore, this Future Conditions Chapter refers back to appropriate material in Chapters 2
and 3 and then supplements the previous material with additional descriptions of future land
use and travel demand. The Chapter also describes the outlook for the following over the
2010-2030 time period:
• Anticipated roadway and pedestrian system performance in meeting the travel demand.
• Deficiencies in the system requiring correction to assure pedestrian safety and mobility.
FUTURE LAND USE
Preparation of a Town of Pinetop-Lakeside General Plan began in late 2009 and is scheduled
for completion and adoption in 2011. The plan will guide the next ten years of the Town’s
development. The plan is to be based on a vision for the Town that includes the following:
• A vision statement. The vision statement is to stress economic development and
employment and is likely to describe the Town as a neighborly and scenic community
with high standards for quality growth and a distinct community character.
• Town development based on the nodes envisioned in the Town Plan (Tejido group)
described above in Chapter 2.
• Open space preservation and linkages envisioned in the Linking our Landscape study
(The Nature Conservancy, 2008) described in Chapter 2.
The future land use map will be updated as a part of the General Plan process. Currently, the
Town’s official future land use map appears in the Pinetop-Lakeside & Navajo County
Regional Plan 2000 (as updated through 2004). Figure 4.1 displays the future land uses for
the pedestrian study area, taken from the official land use map. Figure 4.1 also shows current
parcel boundaries.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 55
FIGURE 4.1. FUTURE LAND USE
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 56
FIGURE 4.2. STONE BRIDGE
Stone Bridge is the only planned
unit development in the
pedestrian study area approved
for rezoning in 2009 (Figure
4.2). The conceptual plan calls
for 79 single-family residential
lots, 64 condominium units, and
at least 30 percent open space on
approximately 58 acres.
SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS
The 2007 Community Transportation Plan (described in Chapter 2) estimated that the greater
Pinetop-Lakeside planning area had 8,300 residents in 2006, and would grow to 17,600
residents in 2030. The same plan contained socioeconomic projections for TAZ subareas
within the Town. Those projections assumed a population growth rate of 2.5 percent per year
for the Town’s greater planning area, but a lower growth rate of 1.5 percent per year in the
pedestrian study area. The pedestrian study area is the older, more intensively developed
area, so it has less vacant developable land than the remainder of Town.
The base study area population estimate calculated for this pedestrian study was 2,544 in 2009
(see Table 3.2.). The pedestrian study area population was projected by applying the 1.5
percent annual growth rate over the future time intervals. The resulting projected population
of the pedestrian study area is:
• 2600 residents in 2010 • 3000 residents in 2020
• 2800 residents in 2015 • 3450 residents in 2030
The above projection was compared with two other sets of population projections for the
region. Findings were that those projections used similar growth assumptions and yielded
similar results when the different geographic boundaries were taken into account:
• In 2006 the Arizona Department of Commerce projected that the population of the
Town would grow from 4,779 in 2010 to 5,891 in 2020, an annual growth rate of just
over two percent. The annual growth rate would slow to just over one percent during
the next decade, yielding a Town population of 6,758 in 2030.
• The Pinetop-Lakeside & Navajo County Regional Plan 2000 also included regional
planning area population projections for 1995-2020. Multiple annual growth rate
assumptions were also included: slow (1.1%), medium (3.5%), and high (7%).
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 57
Estimates and projections of employment for this pedestrian study began with TAZ estimates
and projections found in the 2007 Community Transportation Plan and then accounted for the
fact that the pedestrian study area includes some of the entire TAZs and a portion of other
TAZs. The results appear in Table 4.1.
TABLE 4.1. COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
EMPLOYMENT PTOJECTIONS
Year Town Planning Area1 Pedestrian Study Area2
2006 Estimate 4,231 3,200 to 3,400
2015 Projection 6,484 4,000 to 4,200
2030 Projection 14,400 9,900 to 10,100
Source: 1Community Transportation Plan, September 2007, entire town planning area.
2Community Transportation Plan, September 2007, apportioned to pedestrian study area,
accounting for smaller study area boundary.
Note that the Community Transportation Plan was completed previous to the start of the
current recession, so the above projections did not account for the severe effects of the
recession on Arizona employment. The next paragraphs account for the recession’s effects.
The University of Arizona reported that Arizona was ranked 50th for job growth among all
fifty states between October 2008 and 2009; rather than job growth there was a loss of 6.8
percent of all jobs in the state. The Arizona Department of Commerce short-term jobs
forecast in late 2009, projected that the state would experience nonfarm job losses of 6.8
percent in 2009 compared to jobs in 2008 and 0.7 percent in 2010 compared to jobs in 2009.
Unemployment trends for the Town and Navajo County for 2006-2009 appear in Table 4.2.
The report shows that the number of jobs held by Town and County residents in 2009 were
less than in 2006.
TABLE 4.2. UNEMPLOYMENT REPORT 2006-2009, TOWN AND NAVAJO
COUNTY (Place of Residence)
Pinetop-Lakeside Town
Navajo County less Native
American Reservations
Yearly Average 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009
Labor Force 1,935 1,961 1,987 1,973 25,494 25,839 26,174 25,967
Total Employment 1,862 1,896 1,890 1,825 24,560 24,998 24,921 24,064
Total Unemployment 73 65 97 148 934 841 1,253 1,903
Unemployment Rate 3.8% 3.3% 4.9% 7.5% 3.7% 3.3% 4.8% 7.3%
Source: Arizona Unemployment Statistics Program, Special Unemployment Report, Arizona Department of
Commerce, 2009.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 58
The recession has had negative effects on the Town’s tourism-based economy. While there is
long-term potential for seasonal resident and tourism visitation to grow faster than the Town’s
year-round resident population, there has been a recent decline in visitation. For example, the
lodging room occupancy rate in Navajo County declined from 63.5 percent in 2007 to 61.7
percent in 2008 and 56.2 percent through November 2009.
Given the current economic outlook, it is acknowledged that employment in the pedestrian
study area may not recover to 2006 levels until 2011. Even if growth were rapid over the next
several years, it is likely that 2015 employment levels would lag. Therefore, it is assumed
that the 2015 projection from the Community Transportation Plan, in Table 4.1 above, will
actually be achieved in 2020, and the 2030 projection above will not be achieved until 2035,
beyond this plan’s planning period. Because of the change in conditions compared to those
present in the 2007 Community Transportation plan’s analysis, the resulting projections of
pedestrian study area employment will be used for the pedestrian study:
Pedestrian Study Area Employment
• 2015 3,400 to 3,600
• 2020 4,000 to 4,200
• 2030 7,900 to 8,100
Future pedestrian facilities would serve all pedestrians in the pedestrian study area:
• Residents of the pedestrian study area (projected to be 3,450 in 2030)
• Students at the two school district campuses (currently at 2,700 students, with a
capacity of approximately 3,100)
• Persons employed in the pedestrian study area (projected to be 8,000 in 2030)
• Seasonal residents and tourists (not able to be estimated, but a large portion of
pedestrians during peak and special events)
Seasonal residents are an increasingly large proportion of the homeowners in the Town.
Subdivisions in Navajo County just east of Town have grown faster than the Town or the
County as a whole since the year 2000.
Tourists include many who stay overnight in Town and others who stop in Pinetop-Lakeside
when they pass through on SR 260. A 2003 statewide study reported on visitors by region,
including the “High Country,” stretching from Payson through Pinetop-Lakeside and east to
the New Mexico border. In the “High Country,” general sightseeing and hiking were the
major activities of overnight visitors. In contrast, hiking is typically ranked seventh or eighth
among the activities of overnight visitors throughout the state, while shopping and fine dining
are consistently the two highest-ranked activities. The statewide information was most
recently reported in “Arizona 2008 Tourism Facts.”
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 59
FUTURE STREET NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE
The primary roadway project planned in the pedestrian study area through 2030 is the
widening of Porter Mountain Road and the Billy Creek Bridge. The project was set out in the
Community Transportation Plan, September 2007: Town Of Pinetop-Lakeside (2007 Plan). In
2009, the Southern Navajo County Regional Corridor Tiger Grant Application was made in an
effort to accelerate funding of the project. Both the 2007 plan and the 2009 application were
described in Chapter 2.
TIGER funds were not awarded in the early 2010 round of funding for the Billy Creek Bridge
project. Still, the first phase of the project, limited to design, is a high priority ADOT project
(a part of amendment 29, May 2009, ADOT State Transportation Improvement Program, as
submitted by NACOG). The project description was for minor arterial bridge design for a
project of .1 centerline miles, for two lanes both before and after the project, using High
Priority Project funds (Federal, $190,000, Local, $10,830, Total, $200,830).
The pedestrian improvements anticipated for the Porter Mountain Road project would be vital
for pedestrian safety. The 2007 Plan indicated that Porter Mountain Road – between White
Mountain Road (SR 260) and Penrod Road would have a traffic volume of 42,000 vehicles per
day in 2030. The projected Level of Service (LOS) without improvements would be LOS F.
Level of Service is a quantitative measure of quality of service represented by six letter grade
levels, LOS A through F. LOS A represents the best condition and LOS F represents the
worst condition. Generally the range of LOS C-D is judged an acceptable level of service.
The widening to four lanes together with strict access management control is projected to
improve mobility, but the modeled LOS was not reported in the 2007 Plan. The 2007 Plan did
provide an LOS calculation for a cut line combining the travel demand for Woodland Road
and the central SR 260 corridor in the pedestrian study area. The LOS improved from F to E
largely because the Rim Road project outside the pedestrian study area would be an alternative
to SR 260.
Access Management
The 2007 Plan analyzed six intersections to determine whether to recommend a change in
traffic control by 2015 or 2030. Three out of the six intersections are in the pedestrian study
area: Porter Mountain Road, Woodland Road, and Buck Springs Road. All of those
intersections are already signalized. The conclusions were that the signalized intersections
would continue to perform satisfactorily.
FUTURE PEDESTRIAN NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE
Two projects are already underway that could be considered pedestrian facilities to serve the
pedestrian study area in the near future:
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 60
• One pedestrian project occurred on SR 260 during 2009, although the project was
modified when site conditions required limiting the amount of sidewalk constructed.
Transportation Enhancement funds ($175,000) were used to move the sidewalk from
the edge of SR 260 near Woodland Road along approximately one-quarter mile of SR
260.
• The pedestrian facilities associated with the prospective Porter Mountain Road and
Billy Creek Bridge project were described in Chapter 2.
No other future pedestrian facilities have conceptual plans devised. Many needs and
deficiencies exist related to the capability of the pedestrian network in the pedestrian study
area to serve future residents, employees, and visitors.
PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL AND SAFETY: OTHER FUTURE TRENDS
Regarding bicycle-pedestrian interaction, the Town Council, the City Council of Show Low,
and the Navajo County Board of Supervisors are urging ADOT to consider installing bike
lanes on SR 260 from Show Low through Wagon Wheel and Pinetop-Lakeside. In January
2008, the Town Council passed a resolution to that effect.
Several locations exist where the urban pedestrian network could link to the trails in the
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNF). Continued planning by the TRACKS
organization and review of a draft Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Plan are underway as of April
2010.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 61
5. EVALUATION MEASURES
PRINCIPLES
The recommendations will be devised to increase both safety and mobility for pedestrians. As
options are considered, the following principles are important in setting priorities:
• If limits in potential funding or constraints due to roadway characteristics make it
necessary to favor one purpose over the other, safety is given priority over mobility.
• Recommended pedestrian crossing projects on SR 260 are to be at current traffic signal
locations, plus other areas where there is evidence that more people would wish to
walk. The locations of additional crossings are ones where stakeholders have
mentioned that people would walk if it were safer and other areas where there are
obvious potential start and end points of walking trips on opposite sides of SR 260.
• Any investment in safety and access management for vehicles on SR 260 is to be done
in a way that also ensures safe pedestrian crossings.
Maps of the two portions of the study area appear below as Figures 5.1 and 5.2. The figures
include the locations of the nodes that were conceptualized in the Town Plan and the locations
of the open space sites identified in Linking Our Landscape, both described in Chapter 2.
Both studies were adopted by the Town and are to be used as guidance for this pedestrian plan
and for the Town’s general plan that is underway. The figures also incorporate existing
features that influence pedestrian travel, compiled from findings in Chapter 3. Consideration
of the purpose of each walking trip has influenced the development of alternatives (Table 5.1).
The planning principle is to match solutions to the characteristics of those served:
TABLE 5.1. WALKING TRIP PURPOSES BY VARIOUS PERSONS
Typical or Potential Walking Trip Persons Likely to Make the Trip
To shop, walk to work, visit neighbors, or connect to
recreational trail
Residents of the study area
(projected to be 3,450 in 2030)
To school in the morning, and from school to home or
off-campus activities in the afternoon
To special events at the schools
Note: in the 2010-11 school year, students in grades 11
and 12 will be permitted to leave campus for lunch
Students at the two school district
campuses (currently at 2,700 students,
with a capacity of approximately 3,100)
Restaurant (for pre-, mid- or after-work meal) Persons employed in the study area
(projected to be 8,000 in 2030)
Home or another location, to shopping, restaurant,
sightseeing, hiking, community event
Seasonal residents
Lodging place or another location, to shopping,
restaurant, sightseeing, hiking, community event
Tourists
Source: Lima & Associates, projected populations in Chapter 4.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 62
FIGURE 5.1. PLANNING CONCEPTS FOR THE NORTHWEST STUDY AREA (BRUSD SCHOOLS)
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 63
FIGURE 5.2. PLANNING CONCEPTS FOR THE SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA (SR 260)
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 64
Over the past few decades, there has been a continuing trend for Americans to walk less as a
part of their daily activities. The Town is somewhat of an exception to the trend, as both
residents and visitors spend much time hiking for recreation. Still, only a few persons
routinely walk to school, grocery shopping, or work. Proof of the health benefits of walking
has been documented in much recent literature.
Planning for pedestrians of any age includes consideration of those who can walk unassisted as
well as those who require walking assistance. Many walkways may be made accessible for far
more persons simply by constructing them with an even surface.
The special benefits of walking for children and the elderly are many. The Town recognized
the health and quality of life benefits of walking for young children when the following
statements were included in the Town’s application for Safe Routes to School funds in
December 2008:
The primary reason for developing the nationwide Safe Routes to School
Program is the growing epidemic of childhood obesity and diabetes. One of the
causes of the epidemic is children’s growing inability to get physical activity
due to the lack of safe and convenient ways to do so.
[The project would] make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more
appealing transportation alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active
lifestyle from an early age.
Senior citizens are a large proportion of those who visit the Town or who have recently moved
to the Town. Elderly persons (sixty-five and over) receive special health benefits from
walking. Several studies have indicated that the inability to walk one-fourth mile is related to
failing health, while the ability to walk two miles yields half the risk of heart attack compared
to the risk experienced by the average senior citizen.
“Complete Streets” is a planning approach that is becoming more common. “Complete
Streets” involves planning a major roadway from the right-of-way edge inward, typically
including walkways, rather than emphasizing vehicle travel lanes to the exclusion of other
modes—often referred to as planning “from the centerline outward.” Very recently the
American Association of Retired Persons’ (AARP) Public Policy Institute sponsored the
project “Planning Complete Streets for an Aging America,” (Lynott et al., 2009).
The project took a more in-depth look at some special concerns of aging drivers and walkers
that began to be identified several years ago, as shown in Figure 5.3. The illustration on the
left indicates that older drivers find two-way left-turn lanes confusing and risky, and a raised
curb median is cited as a solution. As noted, otherwise alert and capable older drivers still
experience a slowing of reaction times as they age, and the raised curb median solution makes
it less vital to have quick reactions. The illustration below on the right shows a crosswalk that
is safer for older walkers than is the case with a typical crosswalk, because no slippery painted
surface is within the unpainted central walkway.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 65
FIGURE 5.3. SENSITIVITY TO NEEDS OF ELDERLY DRIVERS AND WALKERS
The principles used to devise specific options are somewhat different in the northwest portion
of the study area than in the southeast portion. The L-shaped northwest portion in Figure 5.1
surrounds the school campuses. The principles applied in the northwest area were:
• Employ Safe Routes to School techniques for their health and safety benefits (both the
formal program and the general goal of safe travel to school).
• On Porter Mountain Road, stay with the recommended project description as set out in
the 2009 TIGER grant application.
• Design pedestrian projects in a way that strengthens the Old Town Node. This is
important to the economic development emphasis of the general plan. Walkways along
SR 260 and on Porter Mountain Road and Woodland Road close to SR 260 might have
more design features such as landscaping, street furniture, and distinctive materials for
sidewalks.
• Design walking facilities adjacent to local streets in a manner that might be a model for
connections to other residential areas (outside the study area). If the facilities were
relatively low-cost more residential areas of town could have sidewalks.
• Design crossing facilities that address the problem of students jay walking across SR 260
between Woodland Road and Moonridge Drive that was previously discussed on page
44.
The southeast area is the SR 260 corridor, which appears in Figure 5.2. The principles
applied in the southeast area were:
• Make safe and scenic vistas along SR 260 to encourage walking from lodging places to
the Penrod Node. This is important to the economic development emphasis of the
general plan.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 66
• Make connections between sidewalks and recreational trailheads where opportunities
exist. Also, assist with wayfinding signs and maps to trails where it is more practical to
drive and park at trailheads than to walk to the trails.
• Enhance the “pedestrian entrance” to the Walnut Creek Node (Yaeger Lane). However,
most of the Walnut Creek Node is outside the study area and not included in this study.
ASSUMPTIONS
This pedestrian study assumes that it is more likely that investments in pedestrian
infrastructure would be made in or approaching the Tejido study nodes than in much of the
rest of the Town. This study also assumes that trails are more likely to be located to connect
the “Linking Our Landscape” sites than to be placed elsewhere. Further, the study assumes
that the Town intends that such trails interconnect with urban sidewalks where possible.
This study also assumes the roadway improvements as set out in the 2007 Community
Transportation Plan (2007 Plan). The major project in the study area is to be a four-lane
Porter Mountain Road. This study assumes that the study area will have 3,450 residents in
2030, in line with the 2007 Plan. However, this study assumes employment of 7,900 to 8,100
in the study area in 2030, less than the 9,900 to 10,000 projected in the 2007 Plan. Chapter 4
explains the rationale for the differences in projections.
This study assumes that Rim Road will be constructed by 2030 outside the study area to the
south and Rim Road will relieve some of the demand on SR 260 in the study area. Rim Road
will also provide another emergency evacuation route.
According to the 2007 Plan, after completion of the Rim Road, the highest average daily
traffic on SR 260 in 2030 would be 45,000 vehicles, at a level of service of F, from Woodland
Lake Road east to Penrod Lane. The highest traffic segment on the Rim Road would carry
17,400 vehicles at LOS F, west of Woodland Road. With the substantially lower employment
estimate in this study, it is assumed that the congestion on SR 260 would be less than that
predicted by the 2007 Plan. The roadway still would carry 50 percent to 80 percent higher
volumes than in 2007.
The 2007 Plan did not include any recommendations for additional through lanes on SR 260
within the pedestrian study area. Therefore, it is assumed that there will be no additional
through lanes. The 2007 Plan indicated that increased vehicular travel would demand
improvements in most intersections of SR 260 by 2030, and the 2007 Plan included traffic
intersection analysis for three intersections, all of which are currently signalized. Those
intersections are at SR 260 and the following roadways: Porter Mountain Road, Woodland
Road, and Buck Springs Road.
The intersection analysis in the 2007 Plan was considered in this study’s recommendations.
Many persons interviewed for this study indicated that residents and visitors avoid walking on
SR 260, and especially avoid walking across SR 260, because of a perception that walking
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 67
would not be safe. Further, many persons indicated that residents and workers who drive in
Town avoid making left turns onto or off SR 260 for safety reasons. Many indicated that
there should be links between sidewalks and recreational trails, and signs to direct walkers to
both. People have expressed their wish for walking trips such as those listed in Table 5.1
above less than they have expressed their more immediate concerns about safety. Because of
the requests for pedestrian facilities, it is assumed that once some of the safety measures are in
place, people would be more vocal about their interest in walking along and near the SR 260
corridor.
EVALUATION MEASURES
Many specific pedestrian and access management techniques have been considered for the
study area. Table 5.2 describes each technique and evaluates each by showing its advantages
and disadvantages.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 68
TABLE 5.2. PEDESTRIAN AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Technique Advantages Disadvantages
Construct raised median • Reduces crashes by reducing vehicle/vehicle
and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.
• Provides refuge for pedestrians crossing
streets.
• Perceived adverse impact on adjacent
business.
• Creates circuitous routes.
• Snow removal is more difficult and would
take more time. Snow would need to be
plowed from the center to the outside of the
roadway where it would need to be loaded
and removed.
• Moderate cost.
Construct pedestrian overpass. • Reduces pedestrian/vehicle and bicycle/vehicle
crashes by separating pedestrian and bicycles
from vehicle traffic.
• High cost and visually intrusive.
• High space requirements.
• May be avoided by pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Construct pedestrian underpass. • Reduces pedestrian/vehicle and bicycle/vehicle
crashes by separating pedestrian and bicycles
from vehicle traffic.
• High cost.
• High space requirements.
• May be avoided by pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Reduce number of driveways.
Combine driveways.
• Reduces crashes by reducing the number of
conflicts among vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicycles.
• Requires agreement of property owners.
• May require redesign of parking and access.
Provide cross-access across adjacent business
properties.
• Reduces direct access thereby reducing
conflicts among vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicycles.
• Requires agreement of property owners.
• May require redesign of parking and access.
Restrict driveway use to right-in/right-out only
access.
• Reduces vehicle conflicts due to left-turning
vehicles.
• Reduces full vehicle access.
Construct pedestrian refuges. • Provides a refuge for pedestrians crossing wide
streets.
• Relatively low cost.
• May not be acceptable by pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Provide access from rear of property. • Redirects traffic from Main Street. • May require reorientation of parking and
building access.
Provide frontage road. • Reduces direct access to adjacent properties
thereby reducing vehicle conflicts.
• Requires additional right-of-way.
• Additional construction cost.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 69
TABLE 5.2. PEDESTRIAN AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
(Continued)
Technique Advantages Disadvantages
Implement countdown timers at walk signals • Increases pedestrian protection; especially
helpful for disabled, elderly, and persons with
small children
• More costly than ordinary walk signals
Implement pedestrian activated mid-block walk
signal.
• Provides pedestrian protected signal.
• Reduces pedestrian and bicycle crashes.
• Relatively low cost.
• Drivers may not expect signal at mid-block.
• Potential increase of vehicle crashes.
Implement pedestrian activated walk signal at
intersection.
• Provides pedestrian protected signal.
• Reduces pedestrian and bicycle crashes.
• Relatively low cost.
• Potential increase of vehicle crashes.
Install pedestrian warning signs • Provides warning to drivers that pedestrians
may be crossing.
• Low cost.
• Does not provide pedestrian protection.
Install cross walk with pedestrian warning signs. • Provides some protection to pedestrians and
bicyclists.
• Does not provide pedestrian signal
protection.
Install guide signs (Wayfinding) • Directs pedestrians and bicyclists to safe routes
and crossings.
• Low cost.
Distribute Safe Routes to School Map • Provides guidance to schoolchildren to safe
routes.
• Low cost
Provide educational material and programs. • Provides guidance to pedestrians and
bicyclists.
• Low cost.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 70
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Florida Department of Transportation has developed state-of-the art methods to evaluate
quality/level of service (Q/LOS) for various transportation modes, including the pedestrian,
auto, bicycle, and transit modes. The methods are documented in the 2009 Quality/Level of
Service Handbook and level of service software located at
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/. Level of service for pedestrian facilities
is also a quantitative measure of quality of service represented by six letter grade levels, LOS
A through F. LOS A represents the best condition and LOS F represents the worst condition.
Generally the range of LOS C-D is judged to be an acceptable level of service.
Pedestrian LOS comprises the factors shown in Table 5.3.
TABLE 5.3. PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE FACTORS
Pedestrian Walkway Pedestrian Intersection
• Pedestrian density • Right turns on red
• Presence of sidewalk • Left turns during “Walk” phase
• Width of sidewalk • Cross-street vehicle traffic
• Lateral separation between vehicles
and pedestrians
• Cross-street vehicle speeds
o Barriers (trees, bushes, barricades) • Lanes on the cross-street
o On-Street parking • Vehicle volumes
• Vehicle volumes • Vehicle speeds
• Vehicle speeds • Delay waiting to cross at signal
Photographic illustrations of the various modes of transportation at level of service A through
F are shown in Figure 5.4.
The principles, the evaluation measures in Table 5.3, and the Pedestrian Level of Service
concepts are later applied to the options presented in Chapter 6 to conclude with the
recommendations in Chapter 7.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 71
FIGURE 5.4. EXAMPLES OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MODE FOR URBAN
ROADWAYS
Source: Florida Department of Transportation, 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook,
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/2009FDOTQLOS_Handbook.pdf
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 72
6. OPTIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
The options for improvements are presented below. The Northwest Study Area options are
presented first, followed by the Southeast Study Area options.
All transportation network components, including facilities for pedestrians and vehicles, are
shown as lines on Figures 6.1 and 6.4. Additional planning and engineering studies are
required to define sidewalk and trail centerline alignments and right-of-way. While neither
this study nor any previous study have recommended a relocation of Porter Mountain Road or
SR 260, the centerline of the future right-of-way of those or any other roadway might be
adjusted by a few feet.
Potential improvements to SR 260, the one study area highway that is on the State Highway
System, can be made only after in-depth planning and engineering studies are conducted by
ADOT, and upon approval of the State Transportation Board. The recommendations made by
this study for improvements on SR 260 can serve only as suggestions for further study.
NORTHWEST STUDY AREA OPTIONS
The Northwest Study Area options appear in Figure 6.1, following principles set out on page
65:
• There are a number of facilities that would provide safe pedestrian travel to school and
facility configurations that could qualify for Safe Routes to School funding.
• The recommended projects on Porter Mountain Road are as set out in the 2009 TIGER
grant applicat

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

Arizona State Library. Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library.

Full Text

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................... 1
PURPOSE................................................................................................ 1
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION ..................... 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................ 6
2. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS............................................ 9
PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS OVERVIEW .............................................. 9
EASTERN ARIZONA REGIONAL FRAMEWORK STUDY (BQAZ) ...................... 9
ARIZONA STATEWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN, 2003-2006 ............ 13
ADOT FINAL REPORT, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN, 2009................ 14
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN, SEPTEMBER 2007: TOWN OF
PINETOP-LAKESIDE ........................................................................... 15
PINETOP – LAKESIDE TOWN PLAN, 2006 (TEJIDO)...................................... 17
LINKING OUR LANDSCAPE: OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT FOR THE TOWN OF
PINETOP-LAKESIDE, 2008.................................................................... 19
PINETOP-LAKESIDE 2008 APPLICATION FOR SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
(SRTS) PROGRAM............................................................................... 20
SOUTHERN NAVAJO COUNTY REGIONAL CORRIDOR TIGER GRANT
APPLICATION (2009) ........................................................................... 21
OTHER BACKGROUND ...........................................................................21
3. CURRENT CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 26
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHYSICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS...... 26
CURRENT LAND USE .............................................................................. 27
SOCIOECONOMICS OVERVIEW ................................................................ 29
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (TITLE VI POPULATIONS) ................................ 32
STREET NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE...................... 38
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE...............44
SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION .................................................................... 48
TRANSIT SERVICE .................................................................................. 49
4. FUTURE CONDITIONS THROUGH THE YEAR 2030.................................... 54
FUTURE LAND USE ................................................................................ 54
SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS .............................................................. 56
FUTURE STREET NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE ......... 59
FUTURE PEDESTRIAN NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE . 59
PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL AND SAFETY: OTHER FUTURE TRENDS.................... 60
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5. EVALUATION MEASURES ...................................................................... 61
PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................... 61
ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................... 66
EVALUATION MEASURES........................................................................ 67
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE............................................................. 70
6. OPTIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS ..... 72
NORTHWEST STUDY AREA OPTIONS........................................................ 72
SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA OPTIONS ......................................................... 76
OPTIONS THROUGHOUT THE STUDY AREA............................................... 80
7. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 81
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS 2010-2015................ 81
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS 2015-2020................ 84
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS 2020-2030................ 85
8. IMPLEMENTATION AND FUTURE STUDIES ............................................. 86
FUTURE STUDIES................................................................................... 86
PARTNERSHIPS ...................................................................................... 86
APPENDIX A. STAKEHOLDER STATEMENTS OF NEEDS
AND DEFICIENCIES ........................................................89
APPENDIX B. CROSSINGS: SPECIAL PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE BEACON
SIGNALS (City of Tucson Brochure)...................................... 95
APPENDIX C. CRASH ANALYSIS BACKGROUND..................................... 98
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2.1. SUMMARY OF LOCAL STUDIES AND PLANS ......................................... 10
2.2. EASTERN ARIZONA REGIONAL FRAMEWORK STUDY: MOGOLLON RIM
FOCUS AREA SCENARIOS, 2050 ........................................................... 13
2.3. “LINKING OUR LANDSCAPE” SITES IN PEDESTRIAN STUDY AREA.......... 20
3.1. POPULATION CHANGE 2000 TO 2008, ARIZONA, NAVAJO COUNTY, AND
AREA CITIES AND TOWNS .................................................................. 29
3.2. 2009 POPULATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN STUDY AREA........................... 30
3.3. STUDENTS WITH HOMES WITHIN ONE MILE OF SCHOOL....................... 30
3.4. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS...................... 33
3.5. FUNCTIONAL CLASS AND NUMBER OF LANES ..................................... 38
3.6. INTERSECTIONS WITH HIGH NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS, 2003-2008............ 41
3.7. DRIVEWAY AND INTERSECTION DENSITY ON SR 260 ............................ 42
3.8. RECENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES .......................................... 44
3.9. HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS CROSSING SR 260 ......................................... 46
3.10 TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLISTS, 2003-2008 ............. 48
3.11. FATAL AND INJURY TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AFFECTING
PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLISTS, 2003-2008.............................................. 48
3.12 FOUR SEASONS CONNECTION FARE STRUCTURE.................................. 49
3.13. FOUR SEASONS CONNECTION, PINETOP-LAKESIDE ROUTE SCHEDULE... 51
3.14 WHITE MOUNTAIN CONNECTION BUS SCHEDULE ................................ 52
3.15. WHITE MOUNTAIN CONNECTION FARE STRUCTURE............................. 53
4.1. COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS ..... 57
4.2. UNEMPLOYMENT REPORT 2006-2009, TOWN AND NAVAJO COUNTY
(Place of Residence)............................................................................... 57
iv
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
5.1. WALKING TRIP PURPOSES BY VARIOUS PERSONS ................................. 61
5.2. PEDESTRIAN AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES:
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES ................................................. 68
5.3. PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE FACTORS.......................................... 70
7.1 PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE, SIDEWALK ALONG SR 260.................. 83
8.1. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION – 2010-2030 ..... 88
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.1. PEDESTRIAN STUDY AREA .................................................................. 2
1.2. INFLUENCE AREA............................................................................... 4
2.1. YEAR 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN ........................................ 16
2.2. PINETOP-LAKESIDE TOWN PLAN NODAL DEVELOPMENT...................... 18
2.3. TOWN PLAN TRAFFIC CALMING CONCEPT, WALNUT CREEK NODE ....... 19
2.4. SOUTHERN NAVAJO COUNTY REGIONAL CORRIDOR TIGER GRANT
APPLICATION.................................................................................... 22
2.5. RELATIONSHIP OF CRASH RATE TO ACCESS POINTS PER MILE .............. 25
3.1. CURRENT ZONING ............................................................................ 28
3.2. TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE .............................................. 31
3.3. COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF TITLE VI POPULATIONS ................. 32
3.4. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE ........................... 34
3.5. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE......................................... 35
3.6. MOBILITY LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE............................ 36
3.7. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE .................... 37
3.8. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION........................................................... 39
3.9. NUMBER OF LANES, TRAFFIC VOLUMES, AND SIDEWALKS................... 40
3.10 DRIVEWAY DENSITY ......................................................................... 43
3.11 LOCATIONS WITH WALKING ISSUES (NORTHWESTERN PORTION) .......... 45
3.12 LOCATIONS WITH WALKING ISSUES (SOUTHEASTERN PORTION) ........... 47
3.13 FOUR SEASONS CONNECTION PINETOP-LAKESIDE STOPS...................... 50
4.1. FUTURE LAND USE............................................................................ 55
4.2. STONE BRIDGE.................................................................................. 56
vi
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
5.1. PLANNING CONCEPTS FOR THE NORTHWEST STUDY AREA
(BRUSD SCHOOLS) ............................................................................. 62
5.2 PLANNING CONCEPTS FOR THE SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA (SR 260)........ 63
5.3 SENSITIVITY TO NEEDS OF ELDERLY DRIVERS AND WALKERS.............. 65
5.4 EXAMPLES OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MODE FOR URBAN ROADWAYS ... 71
6.1 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS FOR THE NORTHWEST
STUDY AREA (BRUSD SCHOOLS) ......................................................... 73
6.2 PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND ON TWO-LANE STATE HIGHWAY ............ 75
6.3 PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND ON FOUR-LANE URBAN ARTERIAL.......... 75
6.4 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY OPTIONS FOR THE SOUTHEAST
STUDY AREA (SR 260)......................................................................... 77
6.5 CRASHES ON SR260, 2005-2008, COMPARED TO INTERSECTION AND
DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS ..................................................................... 78
6.6 INJURY AND FATAL CRASHES ON SR260, 2005-2008 ............................... 79
7.1 EXAMPLE LED STUTTER BEACON....................................................... 82
7.2 PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND AT INTERSECTION................................. 85
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program is sponsored by the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) Multimodal Planning Division, and provides federal
funds for the purpose of conducting transportation planning studies. The PARA program is
available only to communities outside the large metropolitan areas. Large metropolitan areas
have separate funding sources and programs tailored to their needs.
The Town of Pinetop-Lakeside participated, as a member of the White Mountain Regional
Transportation Committee, in another ADOT program for local governments, the Small Area
Transportation Study (SATS) program. In 1998-1999 Navajo County was the lead jurisdiction
in the regional SATS project. The Town completed the Pinetop-Lakeside Transportation Plan
as a part of the White Mountain Regional Transportation Plan. The PARA program replaced
the SATS program in 2008. The PARA program is flexible, allowing for studies of specific
transportation modes and of sub-areas within jurisdictions, which made it possible for the
Town to apply for and receive PARA funding for a pedestrian study in a particular sub-area.
PURPOSE
The Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study (pedestrian study) is a
PARA that is a joint effort of ADOT and the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside. The pedestrian study
reviewed past and current information and considered future travel demand. Based upon the
future demand, options for pedestrian facilities and program improvements were described and
discussed. After further analysis and review, the pedestrian study has resulted in a phased
2015, 2020, and 2030 recommended phased program for the pedestrian study area (Figure
1.1).
The purpose of the pedestrian study is to:
• Increase pedestrian safety (especially for schoolchildren) in the pedestrian study area.
• Increase pedestrian safety and mobility for all pedestrians along State Route 260
• Coordinate all pedestrian program solutions with those of other area transportation
projects.
Beginning at its southeast end, the pedestrian study area is a corridor of two-tenths of a mile
each side of the centerline of SR 260 from milepost 355.2 (just south of Ponderosa Parkway)
to milepost 351.8 (Yeager Lane). The corridor then becomes wider to include considerable
pedestrian traffic around both Blue Ridge Unified School District (BRUSD) campuses, one on
SR 260 and the other on Porter Mountain Road. The northwest boundary along SR 260 is at
milepost 349.6 (Lakeview Lane).
SR 260 is also known as White Mountain Boulevard throughout Pinetop-Lakeside, with
Yaeger Lane as the dividing line between White Mountain Boulevard West and White
Mountain Boulevard East. The designation SR 260 is used consistently in this Report.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 2
FIGURE 1.1. PEDESTRIAN STUDY AREA
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 3
Two neighborhoods outside the Town boundary are included in this pedestrian study because
they are in the school district. Those neighborhoods are located:
• Northwest of the intersection of Homestead Road and Woodland Road, within walking
distance of the elementary, intermediate, and high school.
• East of Porter Mountain Road, within walking distance of the middle school and junior
high school.
The region beyond the pedestrian study area boundaries will have some influence upon the
characteristics of pedestrian travel and on pedestrian safety. The influences are of two types,
at different scales (Figure 1.2). First, the relatively nearby area includes the rest of Pinetop-
Lakeside, Show Low, the Hon-Dah area of the Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Snowflake,
Taylor, McNary, and neighboring areas in Navajo County. One influence from the nearby
area would be the effect upon pedestrian traffic when Penrod Road and Porter Mountain Road
are developed as an alternative to SR 260. Penrod Road is north of the study area and appears
on Figure 1.2 and Figure 2.4. Note that Penrod Land is not connected to Penrod Road;
Penrod Lane is within the southeast portion of the study area. Another influence is the
sidewalk and trail traffic from outside the area that connects to Porter Mountain Road and the
SR 260 corridor. Finally, the residents of the nearby area use walkways in the community
when they visit Pinetop-Lakeside to walk about, to shop, and to attend events, some of which
are at the schools.
A larger region north to Holbrook and east to Springerville and Eagar also appears on Figure
1.2, and is also an influence area. Regional bus service extends to Holbrook, the Navajo
County seat. Much of the traffic passing through the Town on SR 260 is headed east to the
Sunrise Park Resort (skiing center), Greer, Springerville, or Eagar.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
Both of the pedestrian study Working Papers and this Draft Final Report (Report) benefited
from the insights of many people. Stakeholders were interviewed early in the planning
process. The stakeholders included several Technical Advisory Committee members and
representatives of groups that have special knowledge of travel patterns and/or pedestrian,
bicycle, and motor vehicle issues in the Town.
Stakeholders expressed needs and deficiencies in interviews held for the pedestrian study on
September 16 and 17, 2009 in Pinetop-Lakeside Town Hall. Stakeholder discussions included
one to four interviewees plus the consultant and the Town and ADOT project managers.
There were 18 total interviewees:
Nancy Bortin Transportation Staff, BRUSD
Jerry Croney White Mountain Entertainment Group Owner
Mike Digeno Red Devil Restaurant Owner
Norris Dodd Town Councilman
Woody Eldridge Town Police Chief
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 4
FIGURE 1.2. INFLUENCE AREA
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 5
Mary French-Jones Town Grant Coordinator
Brian Gilbert Town Planning Commissioner
Dennis Hughes Chief Operating Officer, Navopache Electric
Nick Lund President, TRACKS
Brian McCabe Town Planner
Greg Schalow Superintendent, BRUSD
Luke Smith Town Mayor and Assistant Principal, Blue Ridge High School
Beverly Stepp Chamber of Commerce Executive Director
Tom Thomas Town Public Works Director
George Turner Governing Board President, BRUSD
Kelly Udall Town Manager
John Vuolo Town Parks and Recreation Director
Leslee Wessel Town Councilwoman
At the interviews maps were displayed that illustrated some of the issues. Follow-up
discussion elicited more issue statements and provided details. Stakeholders had received the
following questions to consider in advance of their interviews:
1. What improvements are needed to encourage pedestrian travel and to make
it safe?
2. What do you suggest regarding how ADOT, the Town, and the Blue Ridge
Unified Schools might work with additional partners on facilities or
educational programs for safe pedestrian travel?
The stakeholder report in Appendix A is a compilation of the statements made by
stakeholders.
An overriding theme emerged both at the stakeholder interviews and the subsequent first
public Open House on October 8, 2009:
Residents and Visitors to Pinetop-Lakeside want to walk in Town—just as
they hike on the nearby trails. More walking would be likely if several
types of issues were resolved.
Two open houses were conducted to receive comments from the public concerning the findings
of the pedestrian study. The first open house occurred on October 8, 2009, and was a
presentation of the issues under study followed by the solicitation of public and stakeholder
input on the needs, deficiencies, and issues. The second open house took place on the evening
of March 10, 2010, and focused upon the draft pedestrian safety and mobility plan. The
consultant reviewed the insights of the meeting participants and they were incorporated into
this Report as appropriate. The public meetings are more fully documented in the Public
Involvement Summary Report (under separate cover).
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Current and Future Conditions
• Since 2006, several local, state, and federal multimodal studies have included some
information on the status of pedestrian travel in Pinetop-Lakeside. The Town
recognized that a pedestrian study was warranted that would have a primary emphasis
on pedestrian safety and mobility issues along developed SR 260 and extending north to
include the area around both school campuses.
• The Town has begun work on a new General Plan that is to further expand upon two
recent studies:
- Pinetop-Lakeside Town Plan, Tejido group (Town Plan), that identified three
walkable development nodes within the pedestrian study area—the Old Towne
Node, Walnut Creek Node, and Penrod Node.
- Linking our Landscape, Open Space Assessment for the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside,
the Nature Conservancy, 2008 (Linking our Landscape) that identified fifteen open
space preservation areas within the pedestrian study area, including twelve with
urban trail potential.
• Throughout the state, the same conditions contribute to pedestrian accidents on the
State Highway System, including SR 260 in the Town. Key factors include sidewalks
directly adjacent to the roadway, a lack of crosswalks between activity centers, lighting
conditions, and alcohol consumption.
• Residents and visitors drive, rather than walk, along and across SR 260 to avoid
conflicts with vehicles. The avoidance of walking in Town affects public health,
business, enjoyment of the scenic landscape, and many other aspects of community
life.
• Potential crash points arise from the lack of access management on SR 260:
- From the northern pedestrian study area boundary to south of Worldmark Drive,
there are over thirty driveways and intersections in each mile of SR 260.
- In the segment between Turkey Track and Stephens Drive, there are 71 driveways
and intersections.
• Some specific pedestrian safety concerns on SR 260 are:
- Traffic congestion and speed.
- Threat posed by difficult turns for vehicles.
- Walking too close to traffic, and sharing sidewalks with bicycles.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 7
• Some specific concerns of the school community are:
- Too few crosswalks
- Student pathways that are not continuous from home to school
• Many elderly or mobility-challenged seasonal residents and visitors are present, yet no
pedestrian facilities assist those who walk slowly or who have deficits in vision,
hearing, or reaction-time.
• Pedestrian travel is affected by the terrain and by winter weather, especially by the
accumulation of snow. Snow removal operations along the length of SR 260 present
additional concerns and complications related to pedestrian safety.
• Many opportunities exist for the Town to link an urban pedestrian network with
recreational trails by partnering with neighboring communities, developers, the US
Forest Service, the local TRACKS organization, and others.
Plan for Improvements
• Recommendations resulted from the following process:
- Review of current and future conditions.
- Review of pedestrian safety and mobility issues identified by the consultant,
technical advisory committee, and citizens.
- Compilation of evaluation measures as criteria for selection of recommendations.
- Definition of an extensive list of options for improvements.
- Selection of recommendations from the options, based upon evaluation measures.
- Phasing of recommendations over three time periods: 2010-2015, 2015-2020, and
2020-2030.
􀂃 The recommendations for 2010-2015 include:
- Billy Creek Bridge as first phase of Porter Mountain Road improvements, and a
continuous walkway between the school campuses.
- A pedestrian refuge area and related facilities on SR 260 between Woodland Road
and Yellow Jacket.
- Signal improvements for safer crossing at several SR 260 intersections.
- Wayfinding maps, revised as facilities are built or improved.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 8
􀂃 The recommendations for 2015-2020 include:
- Widening of Porter Mountain Road from two to four lanes, between SR 260 and
the mid/junior high school, with raised median, curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
- Sidewalks adjacent to SR 260 set back from the curb in many locations, and
sidewalks built to and through the Old Town and Penrod Nodes.
- Consolidation of driveways as a cooperative program with businesses, for economic
benefit and pedestrian and vehicle travel safety, with a focus on Turkey Track to
Stephens Drive.
- Median between Jackson Lane and Woodland Road and between Woodland Lake
Road and McCoy Drive, with appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities.
􀂃 The recommendations for 2020-2030 include:
- Median between East Pinecrest Lane and Woodland Lake Road, with appropriate
pedestrian crossing facilities.
- Pedestrian refuge islands between turning lanes and through lanes (on SR 260 at
Porter Mountain Road and Woodland Road), for safe travel by children and the
elderly.
- Continuation of programs from previous phases to complete the programs in the
pedestrian study area, and to extend the programs outside the study area.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 9
2. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS
This chapter presents background related to transportation in the Pinetop-Lakeside Area.
PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS OVERVIEW
Table 2.1 summarizes the documents that were reviewed. Additional detail is provided on the
following studies:
• Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study (bqAZ)
• Arizona Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2003-2006
• ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, Profile of Pedestrian Safety in Arizona, 2008
• Community Transportation Plan, September 2007: Town of Pinetop-Lakeside
• Pinetop-Lakeside Town Plan, 2006
• Linking Our Landscape: Open Space Assessment for the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside,
2008
• Pinetop-Lakeside 2008 Application for Safe Routes to School Program
• Southern Navajo County Regional Corridor Tiger Grant Application, 2009
The chapter concludes with an introduction to some professional literature regarding
pedestrian safety and access management. Additional information from local studies and other
professional literature is cited in later chapters of the pedestrian study.
EASTERN ARIZONA REGIONAL FRAMEWORK STUDY (bqAZ)
A consortium of state, regional, and local stakeholders completed the planning process
Statewide Transportation Planning Framework, 2010 for state transportation infrastructure
needs. As part of this process, regional framework studies fed into the statewide
transportation planning framework.
The Eastern Arizona Region includes parts of Gila, Navajo, and Apache Counties, and all of
Graham, Greenlee, Cochise, and Santa Cruz Counties. Community Workshops introduced the
public to the Framework Studies, with two rounds of public involvement—Round One
searching for public input as to the needs of the area and Round Two presenting the three
resulting Scenarios and searching for public input on the result.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 10
TABLE 2.1. SUMMARY OF LOCAL STUDIES AND PLANS
Study Description
Federal Studies and Plans
Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forests (ASNFs) Forest Plan
Update (ongoing).
Public meetings were held in April 2010 for comment upon initial
drafts of four alternatives, which will be analyzed in an
Environmental Impact Statement. The desired future conditions
regarding community-forest interaction would be the portions of
the ASNFs plan most related to the pedestrian study.
State Studies and Plans
Statewide Transportation
Planning Framework, 2010.
(Eastern Arizona Region, see
entry below).
A consortium of state, regional, and local stakeholders is working
on the planning process Building a Quality Arizona for state
transportation infrastructure needs. The Regional Framework
Study below fed into the Statewide Transportation Planning
Framework, a long-range visionary plan focusing on transportation
needs in the 2030-2050 timeframe.
Eastern Arizona Regional
Framework Study.
Round One: Public
Involvement Report, April
2008;
Round Two: Public
Involvement Report, April
2009.
The Eastern Arizona Region includes parts of Gila, Navajo, and
Apache Counties, and all of Graham, Greenlee, Cochise, and
Santa Cruz Counties. Products described in this Report include:
Community Workshops, Round 1, March/April 2008 and Round
2, November 2008. The Round 1 document includes public
comment on the needs of the area, and the Round 2 document
includes public comment on the three developed scenarios resulting
from the Round 1 workshops.
Arizona Statewide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, Phase I, 2003
Phase II, 2004; maps 2006.
http://www.azbikeped.org
The Arizona Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan provides a
long-term plan for a statewide system of interconnected bicycle
facilities that will guide ADOT transportation decisions relating to
bicycle and pedestrian travel, planning, and facility development.
ADOT Final Report,
Pedestrian Safety Action Plan,
2009.
ADOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan’s goal is to identify
improvements and programs that will improve pedestrian safety
and reduce pedestrian crashes, fatalities, and injuries on state
highways.
ADOT State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP),
FY 2009-FY 2012.
Contains one major project for SR 260 within the pedestrian study
area, a Transportation Enhancement Project from Porter Mountain
Road to Woodland Road including construction of landscaping,
irrigation and pedestrian lighting, at a cost of $481,000.
There is also one minor project, a FY 2010 project at milepost 350
to construct a retaining wall, at a cost of $99,000.
ADOT Five Year
Transportation Facilities
Construction Program, FY
2010-FY 2014.
The above project from the STIP appears as a FY 2010 project at a
cost of $763,000.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 11
TABLE 2.1. SUMMARY OF LOCAL STUDIES AND PLANS (Continued)
Local and Regional Studies and Plans
Southern Navajo/Apache
County Sub-Regional
Transportation Plan, Executive
Summary, September 2007.
This roadway study resulted in a recommended 2030 alternative
projected to cost $620 million (2006 dollars), in 35 projects, (33
projects to be new roadways or increases in the number of lanes,
and 2 to be traffic interchanges). The sub-region addressed by the
plan included the Towns of Pinetop-Lakeside, Snowflake, Taylor,
City of Show Low, and the unincorporated areas of southern
Navajo and Apache Counties, (Concho, Vernon, and environs).
Community Transportation
Plan, September 2007: Town
of Pinetop-Lakeside.
This roadway plan was a part of the 2007 Sub-Regional study
described above. The material bound alone as the Community
Transportation Plan describes the Town’s recommended 2030
alternative projected to cost $102 million (2006 dollars), in 8
projects that would be new roadways or increases in the number of
lanes, 3 of which ($45 million) would be projects under the
jurisdiction of the Town. The study did not include pedestrian,
bike, or transit modes.
Pinetop-Lakeside Town Plan,
2006.
University of Arizona’s Tejido Group developed the 2006 Pinetop-
Lakeside Town Plan and conducted a community survey to analyze
the Town’s current development and to create new planning
guidelines to direct future growth.
Linking Our Landscape: Open
Space Assessment for the
Town of Pinetop-Lakeside,
The Nature Conservancy,
2008.
The Nature Conservancy completed an assessment of sites that
might be maintained as open space for the benefit of the
community and the landscape, while encouraging growth in
appropriate nodes.
Pinetop-Lakeside 2008
Application for Safe Routes to
School Program (SRTS).
Town Council Resolution No. 08-1013 and accompanying
application to ADOT, November-December 2008. The Town was
not awarded a grant.
Southern Navajo County
Regional Corridor TIGER
Grant Application, September
2009.
Navajo County Resolution No. 63-09, August 11, 2009; endorsed
by ADOT September 14, 2009. Application to fund four projects,
three of which would improve pedestrian facilities on Porter
Mountain Road. None of the projects was funded, but the
application was an informative document.
Public Input, Round One
Two rounds of community workshops were held for the Eastern Framework study. The
purpose of the March 2008 workshops was to exchange information with the public early in
the framework study. Common themes in public comment throughout the Eastern Region
included:
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 12
• High level of interest in developing more public transit (in various forms).
• Interstate and State Highway System needs improvement: new north-south and east-west
corridors are needed.
• Need for alternate routes/bypasses around population centers to alleviate congestion.
• Safety improvement through access management and better bike and pedestrian
facilities.
Mogollon Rim Focus Area Comments:
• Tourism is a large economic factor and brings a lot of traffic in the summer.
• Need for more capacity on existing roadways.
• Need for more rail.
• Roadways already overburdened by tourist travel (weekends/summer).
• Growth is being observed in Snowflake/Taylor, White Mountain Lakes,
Heber/Overgaard, Apache City, Holbrook, and around Pinetop and Show Low.
Developers are moving out from the towns and cities to the County areas.
Three overarching transportation network scenarios (Personal Vehicle Mobility, Transit
Mobility, and Focused Growth) for the Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study were
developed after the March 2008 workshops. The scenarios were based on the following
assumptions:
• Each includes multimodal transportation options to varying levels.
• All scenarios address sustainable or smart growth principles to varying levels.
• Land use is consistent with current local and regional plans—except Focused Growth,
which encourages increased land use densities in certain areas.
• Each scenario is independent of the others.
Public Input, Round Two
The purpose of the November 2008 workshops was to gather input on the three hypothetical
scenarios. The concepts for the Mogollon Rim Focus Area in the three scenarios are
described in Table 2.2.
In the Pinetop-Lakeside area, the greatest difference between the scenarios was the presence of
a conceptual new roadway bypassing Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside, along with the
extension of intercity bus service between Show Low and Pinetop-Lakeside.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 13
TABLE 2.2. EASTERN ARIZONA REGIONAL FRAMEWORK STUDY:
MOGOLLON RIM FOCUS AREA SCENARIOS, 2050
Scenario Theme
Common
Characteristics Other Characteristics
A Personal Vehicle
Mobility
Conceptual new roadway (principal arterial)
bypassing Show Low from US 60 along the
western border of Show Low and Pinetop-
Lakeside to SR 260 in the south.
B Transit Mobility Intercity bus from south of Pinetop-Lakeside
through Show Low to Holbrook along SR
73/SR 260 and SR 77; Improved roadway
(shoulders, passing lanes, drainage, etc.)
along SR 73/SR 260.
C Focused Growth
All three
scenarios
include local
transit service
areas, intercity
bus extents, and
roadway
improvements
or upgrades
Improved roadway (shoulders, passing lanes,
drainage, etc.) along SR 73/SR 260 through
Pinetop-Lakeside; Widen/upgrade SR 260
and Penrod Rd. through Show Low
Source: ADOT, Building a Quality Arizona Community Workshop Exhibits, November 2008.
Exact comments received specific to Pinetop-Lakeside in the Round Two workshops included:
• Show Low needs a safe way for bikes to go along White Mountain Road to
Pinetop/Lakeside.
• Extend the sidewalks from the Deuce of Clubs to Pinetop Lakeside.
• I don’t know if I would feel safe driving through Show Low, Pinetop and Lakeside.
There’s barely enough room on the sidewalks to walk.
• When they redid the highway to Pinetop there was a plan for a bike lane. There is
high level of interest in developing more public transit (in various forms).
ARIZONA STATEWIDE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN, 2003-2006
The Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Phase I (2003) provided a long-term plan for a
system of shared roadways and bicycle and pedestrian facilities for the ADOT State Highway
System. The Plan was intended to serve as a guide to ADOT in making transportation
decisions relating to bicycle and pedestrian travel, planning, and facility development and to
provide a long-term plan for a statewide system of interconnected bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. The plan includes several recommendations that ADOT and agencies around the
state could implement to improve bicycling and walking conditions, and also includes terms,
definitions, and statutes for bicycles and pedestrians from the Arizona Revised Statutes. A
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 14
predominant recommendation of the Plan was to assure adequate provision of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities as integral components of all future ADOT projects, unless the project has
no relation to bicyclists or pedestrians. The Plan also proposed a pedestrian policy for
consideration by ADOT to establish uniform guidelines for accommodating pedestrian travel
on the State Highway and State Route System.
A notable product of Phase II was the guide “Sharing the Road with Pedestrians,” which
advises both motorists and pedestrians to understand travel from the other person’s view of the
road. Given the large number of pedestrian accidents that involve children, many of its tips
concentrate upon teaching children to be wise pedestrians. Specific tips address school buses,
and less familiar design elements, such as the roundabouts that have become more common
recently. The guide also contains relevant pedestrian statutes in the Arizona Revised Statutes
(as of January 1, 2008).
ADOT FINAL REPORT, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN, 2009
The Final Report, Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, 2009 reviewed a Profile of Pedestrian Safety
in Arizona, that had a goal to “identify action items, improvements, or programs that upon
implementation will reduce the number and rate of pedestrian crashes, fatalities, and injuries
on Arizona’s highways.” The report stated that Arizona had the 6th highest pedestrian crash
rate in the nation in 2006. Additionally, pedestrian fatalities in the state accounted for nearly
13 percent of all motor crash fatalities; whereas the nationwide average is lower at 11.2
percent. From 2002-2006 there were three pedestrian collisions in Pinetop-Lakeside that
accounted for .39 percent of all pedestrian crashes in Arizona.
Analysis of the statewide pedestrian data plus input from local officials indicated that the
following infrastructure factors contributed to pedestrian crashes on state highways:
• Sidewalk discontinuities • Lighting
• Lack of crosswalks between activity
centers
• Sidewalks directly adjacent to the
roadway
• Socioeconomic factors, such as
alcohol- related crashes
The Final Report’s Pedestrian Safety Emphasis Areas for the State Highway System included
two emphasis areas of special relevance to Pinetop-Lakeside:
• Reduce pedestrian crashes on undivided (no median barrier) roadways. Pedestrian
crashes occurring on two-way roadways without a raised median account for
approximately 64 percent of statewide pedestrian crashes.
• Reduce pedestrian crashes involving pedestrians who had been drinking. On high-crash
segments, crashes involving pedestrians who had been drinking total 27 percent
of crashes along segments and 22 percent of pedestrian crashes at interchanges.
Alcohol consumption by pedestrians has also been expressed as a concern by local
jurisdiction staff and by tribal communities.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 15
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN, SEPTEMBER 2007: TOWN OF
PINETOP-LAKESIDE
The Community Transportation Plan (2007 Plan) made recommendations for roadway needs
through the year 2030. While the plan did not include pedestrian, bike, or transit modes,
many of its findings were important to this pedestrian study:
• The 2007 Plan’s future land use analysis, socioeconomic projections, roadway travel
demand modeling process, and results informed this pedestrian study.
• The modeling addressed 2015, the time horizon for a short-term improvement program
in this pedestrian study and 2030, the same long-term time horizon as this pedestrian
study.
• The 2007 Plan’s travel demand findings were the basis for this pedestrian study’s initial
vehicular travel projections, which were then adjusted because of the downturn in the
economy since 2008.
The Pinetop-Lakeside planning area for the 2007 Plan extended beyond the Town boundary.
The 2007 Plan’s recommendations were organized into eight projects. Each project was listed
according to which jurisdiction would be responsible, so a roadway through the Town, Show
Low, and unincorporated Navajo County could have multiple projects. The planning area
projects recommended by the Community Transportation Plan appear in Figure 2.1.
The Scott Ranch Road project from SR 260 to Penrod Road is an ongoing project,
recommended for completion by 2015. It is in Show Low’s jurisdiction and to be funded by
federal grants, Show Low, and Navajo County. While Scott Ranch Road is outside the
pedestrian study area, its traffic will impact Porter Mountain Road once both Scott Ranch
Road and Porter Mountain Road/Penrod Road improvements are completed.
Portions of Porter Mountain Road/Penrod Road (3 projects) were recommended to be
constructed in about 2020; the travel lanes on the road would increase from two to four
(approximately one mile of that project would be in the pedestrian study area). The final
portion of that roadway (1 project) was recommended to be constructed in 2030. That
improved roadway, with strict access control, would accommodate the 42,000 vehicles per day
projected for 2030. The continuation of the Porter Mountain Road/Penrod Road widening
project outside the pedestrian study area would accommodate the 38,000 vehicles per day
projected for 2030 to the north.
The future two-lane Rim Road (2 projects) recommended for 2030 or later does not intersect
the pedestrian study area. The Sky-Hi Road Extension recommended for 2030 from Porter
Mountain Road to US 60 is also outside the pedestrian study area.
The $45 million estimate for projects under the jurisdiction of the Town comprises $16 million
for the Porter Mountain Road project and $29 million for the Rim Road project.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 16
FIGURE 2.1. YEAR 2030 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 17
PINETOP-LAKESIDE TOWN PLAN, 2006 (TEJIDO)
In 2006 the Tejido Group of The University of Arizona evaluated the Town of Pinetop-
Lakeside’s socio-cultural, ecological, infrastructure, and economic needs for the Pinetop-
Lakeside Town Plan (Town Plan). The primary object of the Town Plan was to analyze the
community’s needs and to “propose a series of planning options that not only respected the
findings of prior studies, but also developed new planning paradigms for directing future
development.” The final recommendations of the study were organized into three “modules”
of development: “creeks and open space, streetscape and highway 260, and the development
of individual nodes.” Items connected most closely to the purposes of the pedestrian study are
briefly summarized below.
The Town Plan analyzed Pinetop-Lakeside’s current infrastructure and stated that Porter
Mountain Road, Woodland Road, and Woodland Lake Road were considered secondary roads
used by residents and visitors to avoid SR 260. The intersection at Yeager Lane and SR 260
was noted as the busiest and most dangerous intersection in need of traffic calming devices and
safe pedestrian crossings. Additionally, the Town Plan observed the Town’s limited and unsafe
routes for alternative transportation, noting that pedestrian crossings on SR 260, bicycle lanes
on roads, and sidewalk buffers to provide pedestrian safety were all lacking.
The Tejido Group interviewed key community leaders and also conducted a community survey
of business owners, residents, and youth. Survey questions focused on respondents’ feelings
on the current state of the Town and the needs and wants for future development. Questions
related to pedestrian travel produced the following results:
• Enjoyment of Walking around Town. 59 percent of business owners, 45 percent of
residents, and 38 percent of the youth surveyed disagreed or strongly disagreed that
they enjoyed walking around Town.
• Safety of Travel. 54 percent of youth, 40 percent of residents, and only 24 percent of
business owners agreed or strongly agreed that it was safe to drive and walk around
Town.
The survey asked various questions regarding a trail system, with the following results:
• Trail System. 80 percent of business owners agreed or strongly agreed that a trail
system within the Town would benefit businesses, while 90 percent of residents agreed
or strongly agreed that a trail system within the Town would benefit residents. 54
percent of youth said that they would use a recreational trail system often.
To improve the Town’s insufficient infrastructure and to address the wants and needs of
residents, the Pinetop-Lakeside Town Plan suggested clustering growth in four nodal areas.
Three nodal development areas are located in the pedestrian study area, as shown in Figure
2.2: The Old Towne Node, Walnut Creek Node, and the Penrod Node.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 18
FIGURE 2.2. PINETOP-LAKESIDE TOWN PLAN NODAL DEVELOPMENT
Source: Pinetop-Lakeside Town Plan, The Tejido Group, 2006.
Old Town Node
The Old Town Node (old Lakeside) is the area surrounding SR 260 from Porter Mountain
Road to east of Woodland Road. Commercial areas, a new civic and senior center, and new
trails highlighting historic sites and Billy Creek were important elements proposed for this
node. To allow for safe crossings of SR 260’s five lanes of traffic, underpasses were proposed
to accommodate pedestrians as development increases. The Town Plan also suggested
improving intersections along commercial corridors in the Old Town node with the use of
medians, crosswalks, and stamped pavers to alert drivers of pedestrian movements.
Walnut Creek Node
The northeast edge of the Walnut Creek Node would be the Safeway Center at Yeager Rd and
SR 260, but its heart would be new development across SR 260. There would be a new
commercial Main Street oriented southwest/northeast continuing to a new Town Square to the
southwest fronting on Walnut Creek. Residential land would be adjacent on either side of the
Main Street corridor. The Walnut Creek Node was intended to be a Main Street district
between old Pinetop and old Lakeside. The district would have trail linkages to and through
Billy Creek, the Big Springs environmental study area, Woodland Lake Road, the Mountain
Meadows Recreation Complex, and Woodland Park.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 19
In addition, the Town Plan encouraged a traffic calming design (Figure 2.3) at a new
intersection at the Safeway complex and SR 260 with a raised intersection, specific paving,
cues to alert drivers if walkers were present, curb extensions, and crossing islands.
FIGURE 2.3. TOWN PLAN TRAFFIC CALMING CONCEPT, WALNUT CREEK
NODE
Source: Pinetop-Lakeside Town Plan, The Tejido Group, 2006. “This conceptual sketch shows the
implementation of traffic calming devices including curb extensions, crossing islands, and
speed tables. The sketch was prepared to represent an intersection of the new Main Street in
the Walnut Creek Node.”
Penrod Node
The Penrod Node, located at the corner of Penrod Lane and SR 260, would be characterized
by parks and creek access allowing residents and visitors more access to outdoor recreation. A
median island about 300 feet long would be along SR 260 at the offset Penrod Lane and SR
260 intersection. The median would help overcome street crossing safety issues that come
from the offset. An island would guide pedestrians safely across the highway and provide a
safe place for those who could not cross in one light cycle. The Town Plan also suggested
placing a trailhead at the same intersection to allow public access to Billy Creek.
LINKING OUR LANDSCAPE: OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT FOR THE TOWN OF
PINETOP-LAKESIDE, 2008
The “Linking our Landscape” study was a new community vision regarding future open space
areas. The study assessed many sites identified as open space and urban trails/pedestrian
pathway priorities.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 20
Table 2.3 lists features of the fifteen sites that were completely or largely within the pedestrian
study area. Besides those sites, the area just north of Lake of the Woods (within the
pedestrian study area) was labeled an “additional open space parcel identified for
conservation.”
One of the concerns of those who undertook the assessment was that the lack of linkages
between sidewalks and trails discourages pedestrian travel throughout the community.
TABLE 2.3. “LINKING OUR LANDSCAPE” SITES IN THE PEDESTRIAN STUDY
AREA
Site Name
Pedestrian Pathway
Potential?
Urban Trail
Potential?
Billy Creek Natural Area Yes Yes
Lakeside Summer Homes Yes Yes
Blue Ridge Unified School District Intersection Yes No
Big Springs Environmental Study Area Walk or bike the
bicycle lane
Yes
Rhoton Barn Yes Yes
Porter Mtn. Road/Hwy. 260 Intersection Yes Yes
Lakeside Campground Yes Yes
Creekside Yes Yes
Billy Creek Private Yes Yes
Firefighter Memorial Park No No
Fisher Pond Yes Yes
Charlie Clark’s Orchard No No
Lakeside Orchards Yes Yes
Aspen Meadow Yes Yes
Pine Lake Meadow Yes Yes
Source: Summary of information in ‘Site Assessments 1-25 Sites’ portion of “Linking our Landscape” study.
PINETOP-LAKESIDE 2008 APPLICATION FOR SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS)
PROGRAM
While the SRTS application did not result in an award of funds, the Town Council resolution
and the accompanying application are an important record of the Town’s recent planning in
cooperation with the Blue Ridge Unified School District. The Town council stated that the
cooperative effort would educate children (including those with disabilities) and others about
safe walking and biking to school. The application also indicated that a feature of the project
would be to encourage a healthy and active lifestyle and to pre-plan for an infrastructure
project to “improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution near
schools.” Subsequent infrastructure projects would be “a pedestrian bridge over Billy Creek
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 21
and…a sidewalk along Porter Mountain Road on Town right-of-way.” In 2009, the Town
participated in another application to fund those improvements, described immediately below.
SOUTHERN NAVAJO COUNTY REGIONAL CORRIDOR TIGER GRANT
APPLICATION (2009)
Three projects that would directly benefit the pedestrian study area were included in a joint
town-county application for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds under
the Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program. Although
none of the Town’s projects received funds, the needs and criteria for setting priorities were
set out well. The common purposes of the projects were stated as: “The proposed projects
would enhance regional mobility and connectivity, improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities,
and provide safer routes for schoolchildren at Blue Ridge Mid/Junior High School.”
The project sites in the Town appear in Figure 2.4 and the project descriptions were:
• Priority Two Project: Construct a new four-lane bridge over Billy Creek, widen and
build sidewalks and a pedestrian path along Porter Mountain Road from SR 260 to Blue
Ridge Mid/Junior High School, and improve an existing roundabout at the school
entrance.
• Priority Three Project: Construct a four-lane vehicle and pedestrian bridge over Porter
Creek on Porter Mountain Road (in the Town, less than one thousand feet north of the
pedestrian study area boundary).
• Priority Four Project: Widen Penrod Road/Porter Mountain Road to a four-lane road
from Blue Ridge Mid/Junior High School to US 60 in Show Low and provide an
associated multiuse pathway for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Priority One Project was the completion of Scott Ranch Road from SR 260 to Penrod
Road in Show Low, indirectly benefiting the pedestrian study area as an alternative/emergency
route.
OTHER BACKGROUND
Programmatic guidelines regarding pedestrian safety and access management from federal and
state programs, studies of similar topics from elsewhere in Arizona, and selected professional
literature also inform this project. Several key documents are summarized below.
Flagstaff Pedestrian Planning
Flagstaff is one of a handful of Arizona cities and towns that share Pinetop-Lakeside’s four
seasons climate. Extensive pedestrian planning is ongoing by the City of Flagstaff.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 22
FIGURE 2.4. SOUTHERN NAVAJO COUNTY REGIONAL CORRIDOR TIGER
GRANT APPLICATION
Source: Southern Navajo County Regional Corridor TIGER Grant Application, Figure 2,
Proposed Project Locations, p. 5.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 23
Development of the Flagstaff Urban Trails System (FUTS) has been pursued since the 1980s
and the Flagstaff Urban Trails Study was a part of the regional land use plan completed in
2003. Implementation of the trail system continues and the priorities for FUTS facilities are
updated annually by the City’s Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
The 2004 Flagstaff Urban Mobility Study addressed many multimodal issues for the Old Route
66 (west) corridor and the Milton Road Corridor. Many similarities exist between the Old
Route 66 corridor and SR 260 in the Town. For example, average annual daily traffic on two
miles of Old Route 66 ranges from 21,900 vehicles at one end down to 4,500 vehicles at the
other end, while average annual daily traffic on two miles of SR 260 ranges from 22,300
vehicles at one end down to 8,700 vehicles at the other end. Both roadways have sidewalks
directly adjacent to the road and have a similar mix of adjacent land uses, comprising
residential neighborhoods, commercial tourist facilities, and open space.
Safe Routes to School
The SRTS program was created as part of the five-year federal transportation funding program
for 2005-2009. That federal legislation was named the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU. The overall funding
package put a particular emphasis on safety programs. The primary reason for developing the
nationwide SRTS program was this country's growing epidemic of childhood obesity and
diabetes.
The program accomplishes its goals “by providing funds for schools and communities to
implement infrastructure projects (such as sidewalk improvements, trails, and 'traffic
calming') and non-infrastructure programs (such as education campaigns, law enforcement
efforts, and prize giveaways),” according to the ADOT SRTS Program website at
http://www.azdot.gov/MPD/srts/Resources.asp.
A large body of resources supports the SRTS program. The Town, in cooperation with the
Blue Ridge Unified School District, has prepared for potential participation in the program.
Many of the resources for the SRTS program are available on the ADOT SRTS Program
website.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel on Highways
Design guidance from the Federal Highway Administration has been available since the year
2000 concerning how to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel along major highways. A
part of that guidance is the US Department of Transportation policy statement: Integrating
Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure. The general statement of the policy
is that bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 24
unless exceptional circumstances exist. The policy statement details separate considerations
for:
• Urban and rural areas.
• Bicycle and pedestrian crossings (as well as travel along the highway).
• Accommodation of persons with disabilities.
The “complete streets” movement has continued to develop policies and design ideas for the
integration of bicycle and pedestrian travel into overall highway operations. According to the
National Complete Streets Coalition, “complete streets are designed and operated so they are
safe, comfortable, and convenient for all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit
riders of all ages and abilities.”
Many “complete streets” design concepts are similar to the infrastructure portion of the “Safe
Routes to School” program. “Complete streets” tends to be broadened to include other
pedestrians, beyond schoolchildren, and other trips beyond the walk to school. In Arizona,
the City of Scottsdale has adopted a “complete streets” policy.
Access Management
Transportation access management programs have a primary focus on highway safety. They
address methods to maintain mobility while increasing safety. Pedestrian safety is one of the
topics of a highway’s access management program wherever there is pedestrian traffic. An
example of a recent access management program in Arizona is the Pinal County Regionally
Significant Roads for Safety and Mobility study and Access Management Manual, adopted in
2008.
Intersection and driveway minimum spacing requirements, varying according to the density of
new development, are an example of access management. Those requirements may be found
at several phases of the roadway and land development processes of state and local
governments. Traffic engineering policies and guidelines may contain the requirements and
methods for determining traffic impacts. Special zoning districts such as design review
overlay zones may have such guidelines.
Many studies have shown that crash rates increase with greater frequency of driveways and
intersections. Figure 2.5 shows that the crash rate goes up as the number of access points per
mile goes up. At the upper end of driveway density, each driveway is typically related to
more crashes than at the lower end of driveway density.
Conversely, limiting the numbers of driveways decreases the total number of points where
there can be vehicle-pedestrian conflicts in addition to the points where there can be vehicle-vehicle
conflicts.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 25
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
ACCIDENT
RATE
INDEX
Access Points per Mile
Source: TRB Access Management Manual, 2003
Crash Rate
FIGURE 2.5. RELATIONSHIP OF CRASH RATE TO ACCESS POINTS PER MILE
Some further types of pedestrian safety benefits that could accrue from a roadway design that
included access management features could be:
• Sensible linkages of roadways, sidewalks, parking areas, entrances to developments,
and recreational trails.
• Roadway width for bicycles and sidewalks for pedestrians.
• Space for pedestrian and bicycle “refuge areas” associated with right-turn lanes and
medians.
• Grade-separated pedestrian and bicycle roadway crossings.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 26
3. CURRENT CONDITIONS
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHYSICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS
The Town’s website describes the community’s natural setting as follows: “Pinetop-Lakeside
is a community located in the scenic White Mountains of Arizona. Pinetop-Lakeside, at an
elevation of 7,200 feet, is known for its extensive tourism and recreational activities,
proximity to the world's largest stand of ponderosa pine, and for an outstanding quality of life.
The White Mountain Trail system provides over 180 miles of developed multi-use trails.”
The natural environment is described well in several of the Town’s recent plans, such as
“Linking Our Landscape.” Figure 1.1 in this pedestrian study, the Pedestrian Study Area
map, shows the area’s streams, lakes, prominent mountain peaks, and the Mogollon Rim.
Some aspects of the natural environment have particular effects upon pedestrians, such as:
• The high-elevation four seasons climate. Sometimes it is too cold or snowy to walk in
the Town in the winter, but hardly ever too hot to walk in the summer.
• The scenic beauty of the area. A walk in an attractive natural environment is especially
enjoyable.
Land Ownership
The bulk of the lands in the White Mountains of Arizona near Pinetop-Lakeside are in the Fort
Apache Indian Reservation (FAIR; 1.67 million acres, south of the Town) and the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs), north of the Town. The ASNFs comprise about 2.10
million acres overall. There are about 237,000 acres of United States Forest Service (USFS)
land in the ASNFs’ geographic area known as Sitgreaves East. USFS planning includes those
areas adjacent to forest lands that have a high degree of interaction with forests, so the Town
of Pinetop-Lakeside is a part of the Sitgreaves East planning area.
Land ownership in the pedestrian study area appears on the Figure 1.1 Study Area map. The
pedestrian study area was defined to include areas of much pedestrian traffic adjacent to major
roadways. Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the land in the pedestrian study area is
in private ownership.
The proximity of the ASNFs and FAIR to the pedestrian study area is pertinent to the plan.
North of SR 260 a few acres at the edge of the ASNFs are within the northeast portion of the
pedestrian study area near Pineview Drive. South of SR 260, the edge of Woodland Lake
Park, which is isolated USFS land, is within the pedestrian study area. The park is maintained
and operated by the Town under a use permit from the USFS, and the Town is working
toward the eventual acquisition of the park. While no FAIR land is within the pedestrian study
area, the reservation is within a mile of the western and southern study area boundary at some
points.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 27
Other public lands in the pedestrian study area are parcels owned by the Blue Ridge Unified
School District and used for the public school campuses, and lands owned by the Arizona
Game and Fish Commission.
CURRENT LAND USE
This current land use description comprises two parts of the pedestrian study area, the
northwestern portion and the southeastern portion. Figure 3.1, Current Zoning, provides a
view of current and potential land use.
The northwestern portion of the pedestrian study area is where the major focus is the safety
of schoolchildren’s walking and biking routes to school, although it is also important to
address all of the pedestrian issues in the northwestern area. The northwestern portion ends at
Yaeger Lane and SR 260. The northwestern portion of the pedestrian study area is largely
private residential land surrounding the two Blue Ridge Unified School District campuses.
The Blue Ridge high school, elementary school, and school district offices are housed on the
south campus. The north campus comprises the middle and junior high schools. The north
and south campuses include some shared facilities, such as athletic fields, meaning some
students travel the nearly 1.5 miles from one campus to the other every day, largely along
Porter Mountain Road.
The recent TIGER grant application describes land uses along Porter Mountain Road, as
follows:
“Porter Mountain Road is also an important industrial location. Construction of
the Navopache Electric Cooperative’s industrial campus and headquarters is
scheduled to begin in fall 2009 within one block of the Blue Ridge Mid/Junior
High School campus. Navopache Electric Cooperative provides service in a
five-county region, including Catron, New Mexico. The cooperative’s new
70,000‑square‑foot headquarters on Porter Mountain Road will represent a $10
million capital investment. The cooperative retains 115 high-wage skilled and
professional positions in the region. The cooperative’s regional
membership/consumer base is 39,500.
The Town of Pinetop-Lakeside estimates that additional future development on
Porter Mountain Road could result in over 816,000 square feet of new building
space with up to 2,000 jobs.
Pinetop-Lakeside Commerce Park is situated next to Blue Ridge Mid/Junior
High School. The commerce park consists of Pineview Medical Facility,
Hospice Compassus, and light industrial manufacturing operations. The
commerce park is currently at 50 percent capacity. In addition, Savanna
Apartments, a planned 153‑unit rental housing development, will front Porter
Mountain Road.”
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 28
FIGURE 3.1. CURRENT ZONING
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 29
The southeastern portion of the pedestrian study area is the corridor two-tenths of a mile
each side of the centerline of SR 260 from Yaeger Lane to the southeast end of the pedestrian
study area just south of Ponderosa Parkway. There are no schools in the southeastern portion,
but many children’s trips to school pass through this area.
All together approximately two-thirds of the land in the pedestrian study area is developed,
compared to less than one-third of the land in the Town overall.
SOCIOECONOMICS OVERVIEW
The Town of Pinetop-Lakeside has fewer than 5,000 year-round residents, yet serves a
seasonal population of 30,000. Second home owners, seasonal visitors, and tourists come to
the Town for various reasons in every season. Many summer visitors have second homes and
stay for extended periods, while relatively more winter visitors stay in the Town temporarily,
especially those whose interest is in skiing nearby.
Between 2000 and 2008 Pinetop-Lakeside grew at a rate slightly faster than that of the State of
Arizona overall, and at double the rate for Navajo County overall (Table 3.1). At 4,758 in
2009, the Town’s population was virtually unchanged over 2008.
TABLE 3.1. POPULATION CHANGE 2000 TO 2008
ARIZONA, NAVAJO COUNTY, AND AREA CITIES AND TOWNS
Area
DES Estimate
July 1, 2008
Population,
Census 2000
Numeric
Change
Percent
Change
Arizona 6,629,455 5,130,632 1,498,823 29.2%
Navajo County 114,780 97,470 17,310 17.8%
Pinetop-Lakeside 4,765 3,582 1,183 33.0%
Eagar 4,810 4,033 777 19.3%
Holbrook 5,611 4,917 694 14.1%
Show Low 12,315 7,695 4,620 60.0%
Snowflake 5,565 4,460 1,105 24.8%
Springerville 2,194 1,972 222 11.3%
Taylor 4,453 3,176 1,277 40.2%
Source: Arizona Department of Commerce population statistics unit, December 12, 2008.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 30
The Community Transportation Plan contained Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) housing and
population estimates as of 2006. The consultant estimated the proportion of each TAZ’s
housing that is in the pedestrian study area based upon a careful review of aerial photographs,
Town land use maps, and certain assessor parcel information. Final adjustments also included
accounting for development that occurred between 2006 and 2009. The result is the following
estimate of study area housing units, households, and population in Table 3.2.
TABLE 3.2. 2009 POPULATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN STUDY AREA
Area Housing Units Households Population
Northeast of SR 260 1,009 547 1,440
Southwest of SR 260 851 508 1,104
Total Study Area 1,860 1,055 2,544
The population density in the pedestrian study area in the year 2000 appears in Figure 3.2.
The Community Transportation Plan included a 2006 employment estimate of 4,231 jobs for
the greater Pinetop-Lakeside area. An inspection of aerial photos and the zoning map for the
TAZs of which the pedestrian study area was a part indicated that 3,200 to 3,400 of the jobs
were in the pedestrian study area. A more refined employment estimate was beyond the scope
of this study.
The number of students whose homes are within a radius of one mile of school campuses
appears in Table 3.3 below.
TABLE 3.3. STUDENTS WITH HOMES WITHIN ONE MILE OF SCHOOL
Campus Number of Schoolchildren1
North Campus (Grades 5-8) 87
South Campus (Kindergarten-Grade 4) 135
South Campus (Grades 9-12) 143
1Source: Blue Ridge Unified School District, 2009.
About 57 percent of the pedestrian study area’s housing units are occupied by households on a
year-round basis, and those year-round households average about 2.4 persons per household.
As of 2008, the pedestrian study area population was about half as large as the Town’s
population. The pedestrian study area has two neighborhoods within it that are outside the
Town boundary, but in the school district boundary, as noted in Chapter 1.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 31
FIGURE 3.2. TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 32
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (TITLE VI POPULATIONS)
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes ensure that individuals are not
discriminated against based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. Following
the issuance in 1994 of Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, procedures were developed to
analyze the effects of transportation plans and facilities upon environmental justice
populations. This pedestrian study addressed the environmental justice protected classes
including the elderly (Aged 65 and older), minority and low-income populations, and mobility-limited
populations. Environmental justice issues related to transportation in the Pinetop-
Lakeside Area were addressed in the following manner:
• Background data. US Census data appears below that describes the population living
within geographic areas that could be affected by proposed transportation
improvements.
• The Pedestrian Safety and Mobility Plan – analyzed whether the recommended
projects may differentially affect environmental justice populations. Examined the
potential effects, both positive and negative, that those projects may have on the
environmental justice populations. Explained the considerations that dictated this
recommendation over alternative actions, if any of the potential projects places a
disproportionate burden on elderly, minority, low income, or mobility-limited
populations.
• Public Involvement Activities - concerted effort to reach minority and low-income
populations when conducting the study’s public meetings.
The proportion of the population in each of the four protected classes in the Pinetop-Lakeside
area is compared to the corresponding proportions in the State of Arizona shown in Figure
3.3.
FIGURE 3.3. COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF TITLE VI POPULATIONS
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Age 65 and Over Minority Below Poverty
Line
Mobility Limited
(Age 16-64)
Arizona
Pinetop-
Lakeside
Study Area
Source: US Census 2000.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 33
The proportion of the Pinetop-Lakeside study area population that is in each group is fairly
close to the state’s percentage except for the percentage of minority population, which is
considerably higher for the state. The population age 65 and older is the only group with a
share of study area population that is higher than its share of state population. The maps that
follow show the densities calculated for the entire blocks or block groups covering the
Pinetop-Lakeside study area.
Elderly Population: The elderly population was over 14 percent of the total persons in
the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside in the year 2000, and only 10 percent of the persons in
Navajo County (Table 3.4., Figure 3.4).
Minority Population: The minority population was almost 11 percent of the total persons
in the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside in the year 2000 (Table 3.4., Figure 3.5).
Mobility-Limited Population: The mobility-limited population was just over 11 percent
of the total persons in the Town in the year 2000 (Table 3.4., Figure 3.6).
Low-Income Population: The population under the poverty level was almost 10 percent
of the total persons in the Town in the year 2000 (Table 3.4., Figure 3.7).
TABLE 3.4. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS
Minority And Elderly Population
Area Population
Population
65 & Over
Percent
Population
65 & Over
Minority
Population
Percent
Minority
Population
Arizona 5,130,632 667,839 13.02% 1,856,374 36.18%
Navajo County 97,470 9,758 10.01% 56,274 57.73%
Pinetop-Lakeside
Town
3,582 531 14.82% 388 10.83%
Mobility Limited And Below Poverty Level Population
Area Population
Mobility
Limited
Percent
Mobility
Limited
Population
Below
Poverty
Percent
Below
Poverty
Arizona 5,130,632 1,021,844 19.92% 698,669 13.62%
Navajo County 97,470 24,465 25.10% 28,054 28.78%
Pinetop-Lakeside
Town
3,582 404 11.28% 355 9.91%
Source: US Census 2000.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 34
FIGURE 3.4. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 35
FIGURE 3.5. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 36
FIGURE 3.6. MOBILITY-LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 37
FIGURE 3.7. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 38
STREET NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE
Roadway Network Characteristics
The functional class and number of lanes for existing major roadways in the pedestrian study
area appear in Table 3.5. Figure 3.8 displays the Functional Classification. The number of
lanes and traffic volumes appear in Figure 3.9.
TABLE 3.5. FUNCTIONAL CLASS AND NUMBER OF LANES
Roadway Functional Class Number of Lanes
SR 260 State Highway System Major
Regional Principal Arterial
Two lanes each direction and
continuous center turn lane
Porter Mountain Road Town Minor Arterial (Rural
except for ¼ mile closest to SR
260)
One lane in each direction
Niels Hansen Lane, then west
on Rainbow Lake Lane
Town Urban Collector One lane in each direction
Woodland Road Town Urban Collector One lane in each direction
Apache Lane, then north on
Yaeger Lane
Town Urban Collector One lane in each direction
Woodland Lake Road Town Urban Collector One lane in each direction
Buck Springs Road, crossing
SR 260 to become Ponderosa
Parkway
Town Urban Collector One lane in each direction
SR 260 is a four-lane facility with two travel lanes in each direction and a continuous center
turn lane through most of the pedestrian study area. SR 260 is a divided highway (with a 23-
foot median) in the .6 miles at the southeastern end of the pedestrian study area, continuing as
a divided highway for two more miles east, then becoming undivided just north of Hon-dah
Casino at SR 73. All other roads have two lanes (one lane in each direction).
Traffic Volume
The current traffic volumes appear in Figure 3.9.
SR 260 and local roadways handle weekday traffic well other than some peak-hour congestion
near key intersections. Weekend events that bring many visitors to the Town include the Fall
Artisan’s Festival, Run to the Pines Car Show, Native American Art Festival, and Bluegrass
Music Festival. Traffic congestion associated with such events begins Thursday and extends
through Sunday. Additional weekend events draw most of their attendance from the White
Mountains; those events create traffic congestion on Saturday and Sunday.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 39
FIGURE 3.8. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 40
FIGURE 3.9. NUMBER OF LANES, TRAFFIC VOLUMES, AND SIDEWALKS
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 41
Traffic Safety and Accidents, 2003-2008
SR 260 carries a high proportion of the total vehicle and pedestrian trips in Pinetop-Lakeside.
Records of accidents and other incidents on the Town’s roadways are kept according to the
relationship of the roadway segment to SR 260, because the route is on the State Highway
System. A total of 1,675 crashes occurred in the Town in the six-year period of 2003-2008.
The number of accidents by milepost or intersection appears in Table 3.6 for those locations
that were the site of 25 or more accidents. An intersecting street name typically appears if the
accident was at or very near the intersection. A milepost number (MP) typically appears if the
accident was not intersection-related; the accidents listed by milepost number could have been
anywhere along the mile segment (e.g. an accident listed by MP350 could have occurred
anywhere between MP350.00 and MP350.99).
Pedestrian accident information appears in the Pedestrian Network Characteristics and
Performance section in turn.
TABLE 3.6. INTERSECTIONS WITH HIGH NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS, 2003-2008
Intersection or Milepost
Total Number
of Accidents Fatalities Incapacitating
Non-incapacitating
S 260 and MP350 102 0 2 6
SR 260 and MP351 95 2 0 8
SR 260 and Porter Mountain Rd 70 0 2 7
SR 260 and Neils Hansen Ln 67 0 0 17
SR 260 and Woodland Rd 66 2 0 6
SR 260 and MP353 56 2 2 7
SR 260 and MP352 48 0 2 9
SR 260 and Penrod Ln 47 0 0 6
SR 260 and Yellow Jacket Ln 44 0 0 5
SR 260 and Pineview Dr 37 0 0 0
SR 260 and Yeager Ln 36 0 0 5
SR 260 and MP354 36 4 2 8
SR 260 and MP355 34 0 2 9
SR 260 and Woodland Lake Rd 34 0 0 0
SR 260 and Moonridge Dr 32 1 0 5
SR 260 and Yaeger Ln 30 0 0 7
SR 260 and Pinecrest Rd 26 3 1 2
Source: ADOT, Traffic Group, Traffic Records Section.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 42
Driveway and Intersection Density
Many intersections and driveways exist on SR 260, as listed on Table 3.7 and mapped on
Figure 3.10. Several of the intersections and driveways were constructed before modern
ADOT regulations and practices took effect concerning intersection spacing, driveway
encroachments, and traffic impact studies.
TABLE 3.7. DRIVEWAY AND INTERSECTION DENSITY ON SR 260
From Road To Road
Number of Driveways and
Intersections per Mile
Northern Study Area Boundary North of Johnson Ln 45
North of Johnson Ln North of Springer Mountain Dr 31
North of Springer Mountain Dr North of Turkey Track 39
North of Turkey Track Stephens Dr 71
Stephens Dr South of Worldmark Dr 37
South of Worldmark Dr Southern Study Area Boundary 3
Source: Lima & Associates, GPS field survey.
A partial roundabout for vehicular travel was
completed on Porter Mountain Road at the entrance
to the school district’s middle school/junior high
school campus. However, there are no sidewalks
at the roundabout.
Traffic Control Mechanisms
Traffic signals are placed at sites where studies indicate that the traffic conditions justify them,
unless there are extenuating circumstances. The conditions studied are the volume of traffic,
number and types of crashes, pedestrian activity, and physical characteristics of the location.
Currently all of the traffic signals in the pedestrian study area are on SR 260, at the following
locations:
• Porter Mountain Road • Woodland Road
• Penrod Lane • Yaeger Lane
• Main entrance to the school district’s
south campus (Yellow Jacket Drive)
• Ponderosa Parkway/Buck Springs
Road
Three recent Traffic Signal Needs Studies were conducted by ADOT upon the request of the
Town to investigate the need for additional traffic signals. The details of the study results are
in Table 3.8. None of the three studies reported enough pedestrian activity for it to be a
determining factor in recommending a traffic signal.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 43
FIGURE 3.10. DRIVEWAY DENSITY
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 44
TABLE 3.8. RECENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES
Study (Location/Date) Results
SR-260
at Pineview Drive and
Pineview Lane MP 352.77
2004
Two vehicular volume conditions and the crash experience
condition were met. The Pinetop Post Office attracts a relatively
high volume of traffic, but signalization was not recommended
because of geometrics not conducive to signal operation. In
addition, an anticipated post office move to a different location did
not occur.
SR-260
at Woodland Lake Road
MP 353.09
2006
The eight-hour vehicular volume condition and the four-hour
vehicular volume condition were met. ADOT’s conclusion was
that signalization “may be considered.” The Town requested
raised concrete medians to be part of the signal project. ADOT
responded that the expense would be high and snowplowing
operations would be hindered by isolated medians.
SR-260
Pine Lake Road
MP 354.16
2006
Measured data failed to meet the minimum values for any of the
signal warrants; therefore, a signal was not recommended in
2006. The study noted that additional new housing is anticipated
that would use Pine Lake Drive.
Source: ADOT, Traffic Group, Traffic Records Section.
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE
Sidewalks and Other Pedestrian Safety Accommodations
The current sidewalks in the pedestrian study area appear in Figure 3.9. As shown, sidewalks
are on SR 260 only.
Existing Pedestrian Routes and Crossing Measures: Schoolchildren and Others
School destinations and pedestrian crossings are shown in Figure 3.11. Because of the varied
distances from homes to school, those students who walk to school routinely are those who
live in the northwestern part of the pedestrian study area, closest to the schools. The
northwestern area is shown in Figure 3.11, including the locations of school crossing and
pedestrian crossing warning signs for motorists.
The safety of students crossing the area of SR 260 in front of the elementary and high school
campus is of concern. Of particular concern is the large number of high school students who
cross the highway at lunchtime. The segments where many students cross SR 260 stretch
from Woodland Road east to Moonridge Drive. Within those segments there are traffic
signals and marked crosswalks at both the Woodland Road and Yellow Jacket Drive
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 45
FIGURE 3.11. LOCATIONS WITH WALKING ISSUES (NORTHWESTERN PORTION)
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study ��� Page 46
intersections with SR 260. Town staff conducted a pedestrian traffic count on the four
segments between 11:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. on three days in October 2009. The average
number of times students walked across SR 260 each day (one crossing, from north to south or
south to north counts as one trip) appears in Table 3.9.
TABLE 3.9. HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS CROSSING SR 260
SR 260 Segments (West to East) Number Trips Across SR 260
Woodland Road and SR 260 Intersection 31.3
Woodland Road to Elementary School Exit 58.7
Elementary School Exit to Yellow Jacket Drive 37.7
Yellow Jacket Drive to Moonridge Drive 65.5
Total Trips 193.2
Jay Walking as a Proportion of Total Trips 85%
Jay walking comprises any crossing outside of marked crosswalks and any crossing against a
red signal light. Students were observed to be jay walking on 85 percent of their trips across
SR 260.
The pedestrian safety issues on the remainder of the SR 260 corridor are less directly
connected to the schools. The needs of pedestrians in all age groups must be considered.
Those who walk in the area include local year-round residents, seasonal residents, and tourists
who stay for a short time, such as skiers in the winter season. Figure 3.12 illustrates some of
the issues. The locations of lodging establishments are included on the Figure because they
indicate some of the areas where tourists might be walking.
Pedestrian Traffic Safety and Accidents, 2003-2008
The traffic accident summary appears in Table 3.6 earlier in this chapter. Most of the
accidents did not involve pedestrians or bicyclists. Eight accidents occurred for which
pedestrians were considered responsible and twelve accidents for which bicyclists were
considered responsible during the same six-year period. Table 3.10 indicates the violation
reported in each of those accidents.
Several additional accidents involved pedestrians and bicyclists. Two were fatal pedestrian
accidents and four incapacitating injury accidents. The total number of pedestrians and
bicyclists injured or killed in accidents over the six-year period appear in Table 3.11.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 47
FIGURE 3.12. LOCATIONS WITH WALKING ISSUES (SOUTHEASTERN PORTION)
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 48
TABLE 3.10. TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLISTS, 2003-2008
Responsible Person Violation Number of Accidents
Pedestrian Did not use crosswalk 3
Pedestrian Unknown 2
Pedestrian Other 1
Pedestrian Inattention distraction 1
Pedestrian Failed to yield right-of-way 1
Bicyclist Other 3
Bicyclist Inattention distraction 3
Bicyclist No improper action 2
Bicyclist
Knowingly operated with faulty or
missing equipment 1
Bicyclist Rode in opposing traffic lane 1
Bicyclist Other 1
Bicyclist Inattention distraction 1
Source: ADOT, Traffic Group, Traffic Records Section.
TABLE 3.11. FATAL AND INJURY TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AFFECTING
PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLISTS, 2003-2008
Person Affected Injury Severity
Number of
Persons Affected
Pedestrian Fatal 2
Pedestrian Incapacitating injury 4
Pedestrian Non incapacitating injury 2
Bicyclist Incapacitating injury 1
Bicyclist Non incapacitating injury 2
Bicyclist Possible injury 4
Source: ADOT, Traffic Group, Traffic Records Section.
SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION
State guidelines suggest a maximum walking distance to school should be 1.0 miles for
students in grades K through 8 and 1.5 miles for students in grades 9 through 12. Blue Ridge
Unified School District buses children who live close to the schools, because of the lack of
sidewalks and the harsh winter weather in the Town.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 49
The school district and the Town recognize that if there is a safe walking route to school,
health, educational, and social benefits result from walking to school. That recognition was
one of the motivations for this pedestrian study. The district currently participates in an
annual International Walk to School Day, co-sponsored in 2009 by the Town and charitable
organizations. In addition, on bus routes where there is a safe route to school for children
who live near the school, the route is scheduled so that those who live nearest are picked up
from home first, so they are on the bus for the longest time. That scheduling presents some
families with a reasonable choice for their children to walk a short distance rather than
spending additional time on the bus.
TRANSIT SERVICE
Two transit services currently serve the Pinetop-Lakeside Area: A local circulator, Four
Seasons Connections, and a regional service, White Mountain Connection. This section
summarizes both systems.
Four Seasons Connection
The Four Seasons Connection is a public transit system operated with funding provided by the
City of Show Low and the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, with matching funds from the Federal
Transit Administration’s Section 5311 Rural Transit Program administered through the
Arizona Department of Transportation. Four Seasons operates 16-passenger cutaway
minibuses on two routes, a Show Low route and a Pinetop—Lakeside route. The routes
connect at Wal-Mart (at the south end of Show Low), providing continuous service between all
points within the two communities. All vehicles are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Table 3.12 lists the fare structure.
TABLE 3.12. FOUR SEASONS CONNECTION FARE STRUCTURE
Single Ride $1.00
All Day Pass $3.00
General 10 Ride Punch Pass $7.50
Senior - 20 Ride Punch Pass $10.00
Disabled - 20 Ride Punch Pass $10.00
Monthly Pass $30.00
Student Pass (Fall, Spring, or Summer Semester) $35.00
Hourly service is provided Monday through Saturday from 6:30 am to 6:30 pm along SR 260.
Figure 3.13 depicts the 27 stops served by the Four Seasons scheduled service. Table 3.13,
presents the Four Seasons bus schedule in effect in July 2009. In addition, Four Seasons
operates complementary paratransit service for patrons unable to reach one of the bus stops.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 50
FIGURE 3.13. FOUR SEASONS CONNECTION PINETOP-LAKESIDE STOPS
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 51
TABLE 3.13. FOUR SEASONS CONNECTION – PINETOP-LAKESIDE ROUTE SCHEDULE
Wal-Mart 6:30 7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30
Aspen Medical Center (By Request)
Wagon Wheel Plaza 6:35 7:35 8:35 9:35 10:35 11:35 12:35 1:35 2:35 3:35 4:35 5:35
Racer’s Edge 6:39 7:39 8:39 9:39 10:39 11:39 12:39 1:39 2:39 3:39 4:39 5:39
Bell Gas 6:40 7:40 8:40 9:40 10:40 11:40 12:40 1:40 2:40 3:40 4:40 5:40
The Shores 6:42 7:42 8:42 9:42 10:42 11:42 12:42 1:42 2:42 3:42 4:42 5:42
Town Offices 6:43 7:43 8:43 9:43 10:43 11:43 12:43 1:43 2:43 3:43 4:43 5:43
Village 8 theater 6:44 7:44 8:44 9:44 10:44 11:44 12:44 1:44 2:44 3:44 4:44 5:44
Ace Hardware 6:46 7:46 8:46 9:46 10:46 11:46 12:46 1:46 2:46 3:46 4:46 5:46
Holiday Inn 6:48 7:48 8:48 9:48 10:48 11:48 12:48 1:48 2:48 3:48 4:48 5:48
Ponderosa Plaza 6:50 7:50 8:50 9:50 10:50 11:50 12:50 1:50 2:50 3:50 4:50 5:50
Love Kitchen 6:52 7:52 8:52 9:52 10:52 11:52 12:52 1:52 2:52 3:52 4:52 5:52
Pinetop Circle K 6:55 7:55 8:55 9:55 10:55 11:55 12:55 1:55 2:55 3:55 4:55 5:55
Smoke Shop (By Request)
Hon-Dah Casino 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00
National Bank of Arizona 7:05 8:05 9:05 10:05 11:05 12:05 1:05 2:05 3:05 4:05 5:05 6:05
Village Center 7:09 8:09 9:09 10:09 11:09 12:09 1:09 2:09 3:09 4:09 5:09 6:09
Woodland Inn 7:11 8:11 9:11 10:11 11:11 12:11 1:11 2:11 3:11 4:11 5:11 6:11
Safeway 7:13 8:13 9:13 10:13 11:13 12:13 1:13 2:13 3:13 4:13 5:13 6:13
Ponderosa Village 7:15 8:15 9:15 10:15 11:15 12:15 1:15 2:15 3:15 4:15 5:15 6:15
Pinetop Library (By Request)
Senior Center 7:18 8:18 9:18 10:18 11:18 12:18 1:18 2:18 3:18 4:18 5:18 6:18
Antique Mercantile 7:20 8:20 9:20 10:20 11:20 12:20 1:20 2:20 3:20 4:20 5:20 6:20
Blue Ridge Plaza 7:22 8:22 9:22 10:22 11:22 12:22 1:22 2:22 3:22 4:22 5:22 6:22
Ponderosa Lanes 7:25 8:25 9:25 10:25 11:25 12:25 1:25 2:25 3:25 4:25 5:25 6:25
NRMC Hospital (By Request)
Show Low VA (By Request)
Wal-Mart 7:30 8:30 9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30 6:30
PM Route Times are shown in bold face type
Source: Four Seasons Connections; schedule.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 52
White Mountain Connection
The White Mountain Connection is a regional commuter service that was initiated in April
2009. The system is funded cooperatively by the Town of Pinetop Lakeside, Navajo County,
Northland Pioneer College, City of Holbrook, City of Show Low, Town of Snowflake, and
Town of Taylor. White Mountain Connection provides three daily round trips between
Pinetop-Lakeside and Holbrook. Table 3.14 presents the revised schedule published July 23,
2009. Table 3.15 presents the fare structure.
TABLE 3.14. WHITE MOUNTAIN CONNECTION BUS SCHEDULE
Morning Mid-Day Evening
Northbound
Pinetop-Lakeside
Safeway 5:45a 11:10a 3:40p
Show Low
Summit HealthCare/Wal-Mart* 5:50a 11:20a 3:50p
D.E.S. 6:00a 11:30a 4:00p
Taylor
Bashas’ 6:20a 11:45a 4:15p
Snowflake
Northland Pioneer College (NPC) 6:25a 11:50a 4:20p
West First Street 6:30a 11:55a 4:25p
Holbrook
County Complex 7:00a 12:25p 4:55p
Old County Court House 7:10a 12:35p 5:05p
NPC 7:20a 12:40p 5:10p
Southbound
Holbrook
NPC 7:20a 12:40p 5:10p
Circle K Greyhound Station 7:25a 12:45p 5:15p
Buffalo/Navajo 7:30a 12:50p 5:20p
County Complex 7:40a 1:00p 5:30p
Snowflake
West First Street 8:10a 1:30p 6:00p
Police Department 8:12a 1:32p 6:02p
NPC 8:15a 1:35p 6:05p
Taylor
Bashas’ 8:20a 1:40p 6:10p
Show Low
D.E.S. 8:50a 2:00p 6:30p
Summit HealthCare/Wal-Mart* 9:05a 2:10p 6:40p
Pinetop-Lakeside
Safeway 9:15a 2:25p 6:55p
*Estimated
Source: White Mountain Connection, Schedule Revision #2, July 23, 2009.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 53
TABLE 3.15. WHITE MOUNTAIN CONNECTION FARE STRUCTURE
Single Ride:
Within the same town $1.00
To the next town $3.00
Anywhere else on the route $5.00
All Day Pass* $8.00
Senior and Disabled – 20 Ride Punch Pass $10.00
Monthly Pass (unlimited rides) $60.00
Student Semester Pass $70.00
Provides a free transfer to Four Seasons connection in Show Low
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 54
4. FUTURE CONDITIONS THROUGH THE YEAR 2030
The Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study is to result in
recommendations that would be implemented between 2010 and 2030. The study’s purposes
are to increase safety and mobility for pedestrians along SR 260 and in the area around the two
school campuses, in a manner that coordinates with other transportation projects.
Recent plans described in Chapter 2 have suggested future pedestrian safety and mobility
programs. As work began on this pedestrian study Town officials reconfirmed that
recommendations in those recent plans should be considered further in the pedestrian plan.
Current conditions described in Chapter 3 include some new land developments, such as the
new middle school/junior high school campus, and projects in the near future, such as
completion of Navopache Electric Cooperative headquarters on Porter Mountain Road.
Various reports connected to the ongoing projects include some suggested programs that would
influence pedestrian travel and that are to be accomplished over the next few years.
Therefore, this Future Conditions Chapter refers back to appropriate material in Chapters 2
and 3 and then supplements the previous material with additional descriptions of future land
use and travel demand. The Chapter also describes the outlook for the following over the
2010-2030 time period:
• Anticipated roadway and pedestrian system performance in meeting the travel demand.
• Deficiencies in the system requiring correction to assure pedestrian safety and mobility.
FUTURE LAND USE
Preparation of a Town of Pinetop-Lakeside General Plan began in late 2009 and is scheduled
for completion and adoption in 2011. The plan will guide the next ten years of the Town’s
development. The plan is to be based on a vision for the Town that includes the following:
• A vision statement. The vision statement is to stress economic development and
employment and is likely to describe the Town as a neighborly and scenic community
with high standards for quality growth and a distinct community character.
• Town development based on the nodes envisioned in the Town Plan (Tejido group)
described above in Chapter 2.
• Open space preservation and linkages envisioned in the Linking our Landscape study
(The Nature Conservancy, 2008) described in Chapter 2.
The future land use map will be updated as a part of the General Plan process. Currently, the
Town’s official future land use map appears in the Pinetop-Lakeside & Navajo County
Regional Plan 2000 (as updated through 2004). Figure 4.1 displays the future land uses for
the pedestrian study area, taken from the official land use map. Figure 4.1 also shows current
parcel boundaries.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 55
FIGURE 4.1. FUTURE LAND USE
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 56
FIGURE 4.2. STONE BRIDGE
Stone Bridge is the only planned
unit development in the
pedestrian study area approved
for rezoning in 2009 (Figure
4.2). The conceptual plan calls
for 79 single-family residential
lots, 64 condominium units, and
at least 30 percent open space on
approximately 58 acres.
SOCIOECONOMIC PROJECTIONS
The 2007 Community Transportation Plan (described in Chapter 2) estimated that the greater
Pinetop-Lakeside planning area had 8,300 residents in 2006, and would grow to 17,600
residents in 2030. The same plan contained socioeconomic projections for TAZ subareas
within the Town. Those projections assumed a population growth rate of 2.5 percent per year
for the Town’s greater planning area, but a lower growth rate of 1.5 percent per year in the
pedestrian study area. The pedestrian study area is the older, more intensively developed
area, so it has less vacant developable land than the remainder of Town.
The base study area population estimate calculated for this pedestrian study was 2,544 in 2009
(see Table 3.2.). The pedestrian study area population was projected by applying the 1.5
percent annual growth rate over the future time intervals. The resulting projected population
of the pedestrian study area is:
• 2600 residents in 2010 • 3000 residents in 2020
• 2800 residents in 2015 • 3450 residents in 2030
The above projection was compared with two other sets of population projections for the
region. Findings were that those projections used similar growth assumptions and yielded
similar results when the different geographic boundaries were taken into account:
• In 2006 the Arizona Department of Commerce projected that the population of the
Town would grow from 4,779 in 2010 to 5,891 in 2020, an annual growth rate of just
over two percent. The annual growth rate would slow to just over one percent during
the next decade, yielding a Town population of 6,758 in 2030.
• The Pinetop-Lakeside & Navajo County Regional Plan 2000 also included regional
planning area population projections for 1995-2020. Multiple annual growth rate
assumptions were also included: slow (1.1%), medium (3.5%), and high (7%).
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 57
Estimates and projections of employment for this pedestrian study began with TAZ estimates
and projections found in the 2007 Community Transportation Plan and then accounted for the
fact that the pedestrian study area includes some of the entire TAZs and a portion of other
TAZs. The results appear in Table 4.1.
TABLE 4.1. COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
EMPLOYMENT PTOJECTIONS
Year Town Planning Area1 Pedestrian Study Area2
2006 Estimate 4,231 3,200 to 3,400
2015 Projection 6,484 4,000 to 4,200
2030 Projection 14,400 9,900 to 10,100
Source: 1Community Transportation Plan, September 2007, entire town planning area.
2Community Transportation Plan, September 2007, apportioned to pedestrian study area,
accounting for smaller study area boundary.
Note that the Community Transportation Plan was completed previous to the start of the
current recession, so the above projections did not account for the severe effects of the
recession on Arizona employment. The next paragraphs account for the recession’s effects.
The University of Arizona reported that Arizona was ranked 50th for job growth among all
fifty states between October 2008 and 2009; rather than job growth there was a loss of 6.8
percent of all jobs in the state. The Arizona Department of Commerce short-term jobs
forecast in late 2009, projected that the state would experience nonfarm job losses of 6.8
percent in 2009 compared to jobs in 2008 and 0.7 percent in 2010 compared to jobs in 2009.
Unemployment trends for the Town and Navajo County for 2006-2009 appear in Table 4.2.
The report shows that the number of jobs held by Town and County residents in 2009 were
less than in 2006.
TABLE 4.2. UNEMPLOYMENT REPORT 2006-2009, TOWN AND NAVAJO
COUNTY (Place of Residence)
Pinetop-Lakeside Town
Navajo County less Native
American Reservations
Yearly Average 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009
Labor Force 1,935 1,961 1,987 1,973 25,494 25,839 26,174 25,967
Total Employment 1,862 1,896 1,890 1,825 24,560 24,998 24,921 24,064
Total Unemployment 73 65 97 148 934 841 1,253 1,903
Unemployment Rate 3.8% 3.3% 4.9% 7.5% 3.7% 3.3% 4.8% 7.3%
Source: Arizona Unemployment Statistics Program, Special Unemployment Report, Arizona Department of
Commerce, 2009.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 58
The recession has had negative effects on the Town’s tourism-based economy. While there is
long-term potential for seasonal resident and tourism visitation to grow faster than the Town’s
year-round resident population, there has been a recent decline in visitation. For example, the
lodging room occupancy rate in Navajo County declined from 63.5 percent in 2007 to 61.7
percent in 2008 and 56.2 percent through November 2009.
Given the current economic outlook, it is acknowledged that employment in the pedestrian
study area may not recover to 2006 levels until 2011. Even if growth were rapid over the next
several years, it is likely that 2015 employment levels would lag. Therefore, it is assumed
that the 2015 projection from the Community Transportation Plan, in Table 4.1 above, will
actually be achieved in 2020, and the 2030 projection above will not be achieved until 2035,
beyond this plan’s planning period. Because of the change in conditions compared to those
present in the 2007 Community Transportation plan’s analysis, the resulting projections of
pedestrian study area employment will be used for the pedestrian study:
Pedestrian Study Area Employment
• 2015 3,400 to 3,600
• 2020 4,000 to 4,200
• 2030 7,900 to 8,100
Future pedestrian facilities would serve all pedestrians in the pedestrian study area:
• Residents of the pedestrian study area (projected to be 3,450 in 2030)
• Students at the two school district campuses (currently at 2,700 students, with a
capacity of approximately 3,100)
• Persons employed in the pedestrian study area (projected to be 8,000 in 2030)
• Seasonal residents and tourists (not able to be estimated, but a large portion of
pedestrians during peak and special events)
Seasonal residents are an increasingly large proportion of the homeowners in the Town.
Subdivisions in Navajo County just east of Town have grown faster than the Town or the
County as a whole since the year 2000.
Tourists include many who stay overnight in Town and others who stop in Pinetop-Lakeside
when they pass through on SR 260. A 2003 statewide study reported on visitors by region,
including the “High Country,” stretching from Payson through Pinetop-Lakeside and east to
the New Mexico border. In the “High Country,” general sightseeing and hiking were the
major activities of overnight visitors. In contrast, hiking is typically ranked seventh or eighth
among the activities of overnight visitors throughout the state, while shopping and fine dining
are consistently the two highest-ranked activities. The statewide information was most
recently reported in “Arizona 2008 Tourism Facts.”
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 59
FUTURE STREET NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE
The primary roadway project planned in the pedestrian study area through 2030 is the
widening of Porter Mountain Road and the Billy Creek Bridge. The project was set out in the
Community Transportation Plan, September 2007: Town Of Pinetop-Lakeside (2007 Plan). In
2009, the Southern Navajo County Regional Corridor Tiger Grant Application was made in an
effort to accelerate funding of the project. Both the 2007 plan and the 2009 application were
described in Chapter 2.
TIGER funds were not awarded in the early 2010 round of funding for the Billy Creek Bridge
project. Still, the first phase of the project, limited to design, is a high priority ADOT project
(a part of amendment 29, May 2009, ADOT State Transportation Improvement Program, as
submitted by NACOG). The project description was for minor arterial bridge design for a
project of .1 centerline miles, for two lanes both before and after the project, using High
Priority Project funds (Federal, $190,000, Local, $10,830, Total, $200,830).
The pedestrian improvements anticipated for the Porter Mountain Road project would be vital
for pedestrian safety. The 2007 Plan indicated that Porter Mountain Road – between White
Mountain Road (SR 260) and Penrod Road would have a traffic volume of 42,000 vehicles per
day in 2030. The projected Level of Service (LOS) without improvements would be LOS F.
Level of Service is a quantitative measure of quality of service represented by six letter grade
levels, LOS A through F. LOS A represents the best condition and LOS F represents the
worst condition. Generally the range of LOS C-D is judged an acceptable level of service.
The widening to four lanes together with strict access management control is projected to
improve mobility, but the modeled LOS was not reported in the 2007 Plan. The 2007 Plan did
provide an LOS calculation for a cut line combining the travel demand for Woodland Road
and the central SR 260 corridor in the pedestrian study area. The LOS improved from F to E
largely because the Rim Road project outside the pedestrian study area would be an alternative
to SR 260.
Access Management
The 2007 Plan analyzed six intersections to determine whether to recommend a change in
traffic control by 2015 or 2030. Three out of the six intersections are in the pedestrian study
area: Porter Mountain Road, Woodland Road, and Buck Springs Road. All of those
intersections are already signalized. The conclusions were that the signalized intersections
would continue to perform satisfactorily.
FUTURE PEDESTRIAN NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE
Two projects are already underway that could be considered pedestrian facilities to serve the
pedestrian study area in the near future:
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 60
• One pedestrian project occurred on SR 260 during 2009, although the project was
modified when site conditions required limiting the amount of sidewalk constructed.
Transportation Enhancement funds ($175,000) were used to move the sidewalk from
the edge of SR 260 near Woodland Road along approximately one-quarter mile of SR
260.
• The pedestrian facilities associated with the prospective Porter Mountain Road and
Billy Creek Bridge project were described in Chapter 2.
No other future pedestrian facilities have conceptual plans devised. Many needs and
deficiencies exist related to the capability of the pedestrian network in the pedestrian study
area to serve future residents, employees, and visitors.
PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL AND SAFETY: OTHER FUTURE TRENDS
Regarding bicycle-pedestrian interaction, the Town Council, the City Council of Show Low,
and the Navajo County Board of Supervisors are urging ADOT to consider installing bike
lanes on SR 260 from Show Low through Wagon Wheel and Pinetop-Lakeside. In January
2008, the Town Council passed a resolution to that effect.
Several locations exist where the urban pedestrian network could link to the trails in the
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNF). Continued planning by the TRACKS
organization and review of a draft Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Plan are underway as of April
2010.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 61
5. EVALUATION MEASURES
PRINCIPLES
The recommendations will be devised to increase both safety and mobility for pedestrians. As
options are considered, the following principles are important in setting priorities:
• If limits in potential funding or constraints due to roadway characteristics make it
necessary to favor one purpose over the other, safety is given priority over mobility.
• Recommended pedestrian crossing projects on SR 260 are to be at current traffic signal
locations, plus other areas where there is evidence that more people would wish to
walk. The locations of additional crossings are ones where stakeholders have
mentioned that people would walk if it were safer and other areas where there are
obvious potential start and end points of walking trips on opposite sides of SR 260.
• Any investment in safety and access management for vehicles on SR 260 is to be done
in a way that also ensures safe pedestrian crossings.
Maps of the two portions of the study area appear below as Figures 5.1 and 5.2. The figures
include the locations of the nodes that were conceptualized in the Town Plan and the locations
of the open space sites identified in Linking Our Landscape, both described in Chapter 2.
Both studies were adopted by the Town and are to be used as guidance for this pedestrian plan
and for the Town’s general plan that is underway. The figures also incorporate existing
features that influence pedestrian travel, compiled from findings in Chapter 3. Consideration
of the purpose of each walking trip has influenced the development of alternatives (Table 5.1).
The planning principle is to match solutions to the characteristics of those served:
TABLE 5.1. WALKING TRIP PURPOSES BY VARIOUS PERSONS
Typical or Potential Walking Trip Persons Likely to Make the Trip
To shop, walk to work, visit neighbors, or connect to
recreational trail
Residents of the study area
(projected to be 3,450 in 2030)
To school in the morning, and from school to home or
off-campus activities in the afternoon
To special events at the schools
Note: in the 2010-11 school year, students in grades 11
and 12 will be permitted to leave campus for lunch
Students at the two school district
campuses (currently at 2,700 students,
with a capacity of approximately 3,100)
Restaurant (for pre-, mid- or after-work meal) Persons employed in the study area
(projected to be 8,000 in 2030)
Home or another location, to shopping, restaurant,
sightseeing, hiking, community event
Seasonal residents
Lodging place or another location, to shopping,
restaurant, sightseeing, hiking, community event
Tourists
Source: Lima & Associates, projected populations in Chapter 4.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 62
FIGURE 5.1. PLANNING CONCEPTS FOR THE NORTHWEST STUDY AREA (BRUSD SCHOOLS)
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 63
FIGURE 5.2. PLANNING CONCEPTS FOR THE SOUTHEAST STUDY AREA (SR 260)
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 64
Over the past few decades, there has been a continuing trend for Americans to walk less as a
part of their daily activities. The Town is somewhat of an exception to the trend, as both
residents and visitors spend much time hiking for recreation. Still, only a few persons
routinely walk to school, grocery shopping, or work. Proof of the health benefits of walking
has been documented in much recent literature.
Planning for pedestrians of any age includes consideration of those who can walk unassisted as
well as those who require walking assistance. Many walkways may be made accessible for far
more persons simply by constructing them with an even surface.
The special benefits of walking for children and the elderly are many. The Town recognized
the health and quality of life benefits of walking for young children when the following
statements were included in the Town’s application for Safe Routes to School funds in
December 2008:
The primary reason for developing the nationwide Safe Routes to School
Program is the growing epidemic of childhood obesity and diabetes. One of the
causes of the epidemic is children’s growing inability to get physical activity
due to the lack of safe and convenient ways to do so.
[The project would] make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more
appealing transportation alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active
lifestyle from an early age.
Senior citizens are a large proportion of those who visit the Town or who have recently moved
to the Town. Elderly persons (sixty-five and over) receive special health benefits from
walking. Several studies have indicated that the inability to walk one-fourth mile is related to
failing health, while the ability to walk two miles yields half the risk of heart attack compared
to the risk experienced by the average senior citizen.
“Complete Streets” is a planning approach that is becoming more common. “Complete
Streets” involves planning a major roadway from the right-of-way edge inward, typically
including walkways, rather than emphasizing vehicle travel lanes to the exclusion of other
modes—often referred to as planning “from the centerline outward.” Very recently the
American Association of Retired Persons’ (AARP) Public Policy Institute sponsored the
project “Planning Complete Streets for an Aging America,” (Lynott et al., 2009).
The project took a more in-depth look at some special concerns of aging drivers and walkers
that began to be identified several years ago, as shown in Figure 5.3. The illustration on the
left indicates that older drivers find two-way left-turn lanes confusing and risky, and a raised
curb median is cited as a solution. As noted, otherwise alert and capable older drivers still
experience a slowing of reaction times as they age, and the raised curb median solution makes
it less vital to have quick reactions. The illustration below on the right shows a crosswalk that
is safer for older walkers than is the case with a typical crosswalk, because no slippery painted
surface is within the unpainted central walkway.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 65
FIGURE 5.3. SENSITIVITY TO NEEDS OF ELDERLY DRIVERS AND WALKERS
The principles used to devise specific options are somewhat different in the northwest portion
of the study area than in the southeast portion. The L-shaped northwest portion in Figure 5.1
surrounds the school campuses. The principles applied in the northwest area were:
• Employ Safe Routes to School techniques for their health and safety benefits (both the
formal program and the general goal of safe travel to school).
• On Porter Mountain Road, stay with the recommended project description as set out in
the 2009 TIGER grant application.
• Design pedestrian projects in a way that strengthens the Old Town Node. This is
important to the economic development emphasis of the general plan. Walkways along
SR 260 and on Porter Mountain Road and Woodland Road close to SR 260 might have
more design features such as landscaping, street furniture, and distinctive materials for
sidewalks.
• Design walking facilities adjacent to local streets in a manner that might be a model for
connections to other residential areas (outside the study area). If the facilities were
relatively low-cost more residential areas of town could have sidewalks.
• Design crossing facilities that address the problem of students jay walking across SR 260
between Woodland Road and Moonridge Drive that was previously discussed on page
44.
The southeast area is the SR 260 corridor, which appears in Figure 5.2. The principles
applied in the southeast area were:
• Make safe and scenic vistas along SR 260 to encourage walking from lodging places to
the Penrod Node. This is important to the economic development emphasis of the
general plan.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 66
• Make connections between sidewalks and recreational trailheads where opportunities
exist. Also, assist with wayfinding signs and maps to trails where it is more practical to
drive and park at trailheads than to walk to the trails.
• Enhance the “pedestrian entrance” to the Walnut Creek Node (Yaeger Lane). However,
most of the Walnut Creek Node is outside the study area and not included in this study.
ASSUMPTIONS
This pedestrian study assumes that it is more likely that investments in pedestrian
infrastructure would be made in or approaching the Tejido study nodes than in much of the
rest of the Town. This study also assumes that trails are more likely to be located to connect
the “Linking Our Landscape” sites than to be placed elsewhere. Further, the study assumes
that the Town intends that such trails interconnect with urban sidewalks where possible.
This study also assumes the roadway improvements as set out in the 2007 Community
Transportation Plan (2007 Plan). The major project in the study area is to be a four-lane
Porter Mountain Road. This study assumes that the study area will have 3,450 residents in
2030, in line with the 2007 Plan. However, this study assumes employment of 7,900 to 8,100
in the study area in 2030, less than the 9,900 to 10,000 projected in the 2007 Plan. Chapter 4
explains the rationale for the differences in projections.
This study assumes that Rim Road will be constructed by 2030 outside the study area to the
south and Rim Road will relieve some of the demand on SR 260 in the study area. Rim Road
will also provide another emergency evacuation route.
According to the 2007 Plan, after completion of the Rim Road, the highest average daily
traffic on SR 260 in 2030 would be 45,000 vehicles, at a level of service of F, from Woodland
Lake Road east to Penrod Lane. The highest traffic segment on the Rim Road would carry
17,400 vehicles at LOS F, west of Woodland Road. With the substantially lower employment
estimate in this study, it is assumed that the congestion on SR 260 would be less than that
predicted by the 2007 Plan. The roadway still would carry 50 percent to 80 percent higher
volumes than in 2007.
The 2007 Plan did not include any recommendations for additional through lanes on SR 260
within the pedestrian study area. Therefore, it is assumed that there will be no additional
through lanes. The 2007 Plan indicated that increased vehicular travel would demand
improvements in most intersections of SR 260 by 2030, and the 2007 Plan included traffic
intersection analysis for three intersections, all of which are currently signalized. Those
intersections are at SR 260 and the following roadways: Porter Mountain Road, Woodland
Road, and Buck Springs Road.
The intersection analysis in the 2007 Plan was considered in this study’s recommendations.
Many persons interviewed for this study indicated that residents and visitors avoid walking on
SR 260, and especially avoid walking across SR 260, because of a perception that walking
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 67
would not be safe. Further, many persons indicated that residents and workers who drive in
Town avoid making left turns onto or off SR 260 for safety reasons. Many indicated that
there should be links between sidewalks and recreational trails, and signs to direct walkers to
both. People have expressed their wish for walking trips such as those listed in Table 5.1
above less than they have expressed their more immediate concerns about safety. Because of
the requests for pedestrian facilities, it is assumed that once some of the safety measures are in
place, people would be more vocal about their interest in walking along and near the SR 260
corridor.
EVALUATION MEASURES
Many specific pedestrian and access management techniques have been considered for the
study area. Table 5.2 describes each technique and evaluates each by showing its advantages
and disadvantages.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 68
TABLE 5.2. PEDESTRIAN AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Technique Advantages Disadvantages
Construct raised median • Reduces crashes by reducing vehicle/vehicle
and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.
• Provides refuge for pedestrians crossing
streets.
• Perceived adverse impact on adjacent
business.
• Creates circuitous routes.
• Snow removal is more difficult and would
take more time. Snow would need to be
plowed from the center to the outside of the
roadway where it would need to be loaded
and removed.
• Moderate cost.
Construct pedestrian overpass. • Reduces pedestrian/vehicle and bicycle/vehicle
crashes by separating pedestrian and bicycles
from vehicle traffic.
• High cost and visually intrusive.
• High space requirements.
• May be avoided by pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Construct pedestrian underpass. • Reduces pedestrian/vehicle and bicycle/vehicle
crashes by separating pedestrian and bicycles
from vehicle traffic.
• High cost.
• High space requirements.
• May be avoided by pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Reduce number of driveways.
Combine driveways.
• Reduces crashes by reducing the number of
conflicts among vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicycles.
• Requires agreement of property owners.
• May require redesign of parking and access.
Provide cross-access across adjacent business
properties.
• Reduces direct access thereby reducing
conflicts among vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicycles.
• Requires agreement of property owners.
• May require redesign of parking and access.
Restrict driveway use to right-in/right-out only
access.
• Reduces vehicle conflicts due to left-turning
vehicles.
• Reduces full vehicle access.
Construct pedestrian refuges. • Provides a refuge for pedestrians crossing wide
streets.
• Relatively low cost.
• May not be acceptable by pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Provide access from rear of property. • Redirects traffic from Main Street. • May require reorientation of parking and
building access.
Provide frontage road. • Reduces direct access to adjacent properties
thereby reducing vehicle conflicts.
• Requires additional right-of-way.
• Additional construction cost.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 69
TABLE 5.2. PEDESTRIAN AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
(Continued)
Technique Advantages Disadvantages
Implement countdown timers at walk signals • Increases pedestrian protection; especially
helpful for disabled, elderly, and persons with
small children
• More costly than ordinary walk signals
Implement pedestrian activated mid-block walk
signal.
• Provides pedestrian protected signal.
• Reduces pedestrian and bicycle crashes.
• Relatively low cost.
• Drivers may not expect signal at mid-block.
• Potential increase of vehicle crashes.
Implement pedestrian activated walk signal at
intersection.
• Provides pedestrian protected signal.
• Reduces pedestrian and bicycle crashes.
• Relatively low cost.
• Potential increase of vehicle crashes.
Install pedestrian warning signs • Provides warning to drivers that pedestrians
may be crossing.
• Low cost.
• Does not provide pedestrian protection.
Install cross walk with pedestrian warning signs. • Provides some protection to pedestrians and
bicyclists.
• Does not provide pedestrian signal
protection.
Install guide signs (Wayfinding) • Directs pedestrians and bicyclists to safe routes
and crossings.
• Low cost.
Distribute Safe Routes to School Map • Provides guidance to schoolchildren to safe
routes.
• Low cost
Provide educational material and programs. • Provides guidance to pedestrians and
bicyclists.
• Low cost.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 70
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Florida Department of Transportation has developed state-of-the art methods to evaluate
quality/level of service (Q/LOS) for various transportation modes, including the pedestrian,
auto, bicycle, and transit modes. The methods are documented in the 2009 Quality/Level of
Service Handbook and level of service software located at
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/. Level of service for pedestrian facilities
is also a quantitative measure of quality of service represented by six letter grade levels, LOS
A through F. LOS A represents the best condition and LOS F represents the worst condition.
Generally the range of LOS C-D is judged to be an acceptable level of service.
Pedestrian LOS comprises the factors shown in Table 5.3.
TABLE 5.3. PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE FACTORS
Pedestrian Walkway Pedestrian Intersection
• Pedestrian density • Right turns on red
• Presence of sidewalk • Left turns during “Walk” phase
• Width of sidewalk • Cross-street vehicle traffic
• Lateral separation between vehicles
and pedestrians
• Cross-street vehicle speeds
o Barriers (trees, bushes, barricades) • Lanes on the cross-street
o On-Street parking • Vehicle volumes
• Vehicle volumes • Vehicle speeds
• Vehicle speeds • Delay waiting to cross at signal
Photographic illustrations of the various modes of transportation at level of service A through
F are shown in Figure 5.4.
The principles, the evaluation measures in Table 5.3, and the Pedestrian Level of Service
concepts are later applied to the options presented in Chapter 6 to conclude with the
recommendations in Chapter 7.
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 71
FIGURE 5.4. EXAMPLES OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MODE FOR URBAN
ROADWAYS
Source: Florida Department of Transportation, 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook,
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/2009FDOTQLOS_Handbook.pdf
Lima & Associates Pinetop-Lakeside Pedestrian Safety and Transportation Study – Page 72
6. OPTIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND MOBILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
The options for improvements are presented below. The Northwest Study Area options are
presented first, followed by the Southeast Study Area options.
All transportation network components, including facilities for pedestrians and vehicles, are
shown as lines on Figures 6.1 and 6.4. Additional planning and engineering studies are
required to define sidewalk and trail centerline alignments and right-of-way. While neither
this study nor any previous study have recommended a relocation of Porter Mountain Road or
SR 260, the centerline of the future right-of-way of those or any other roadway might be
adjusted by a few feet.
Potential improvements to SR 260, the one study area highway that is on the State Highway
System, can be made only after in-depth planning and engineering studies are conducted by
ADOT, and upon approval of the State Transportation Board. The recommendations made by
this study for improvements on SR 260 can serve only as suggestions for further study.
NORTHWEST STUDY AREA OPTIONS
The Northwest Study Area options appear in Figure 6.1, following principles set out on page
65:
• There are a number of facilities that would provide safe pedestrian travel to school and
facility configurations that could qualify for Safe Routes to School funding.
• The recommended projects on Porter Mountain Road are as set out in the 2009 TIGER
grant applicat